my first reaction is that this should probably only affect relative inclusions...  Otherwise we might really drown recent changes with edits to a  commonly transcluded card.

---

how do we know if an inclusion is relative? it would need to be recorded in the reference. (currently is not)

  --Lewis Hoffman.....Fri Jul 10 11:12:52 -0700 2009

---

convo w/ Ethan, we can do just cards included by trunk. this will be the same as relative in most cases but doesn't require new tracking. FTW!

  --Lewis Hoffman.....Tue Jul 28 09:42:23 -0700 2009

---

 

---

This is done for notifications. Bailing on recent changes for now.

  --Lewis Hoffman.....Tue Aug 04 12:50:32 -0700 2009

---

Cool, it works!

 

At least one issue with it -- the email tells me who last changed the including card and its last-changed date, rather than that giving info for the included card that actually changed.

  --John Abbe.....Wed Aug 05 08:10:40 -0700 2009

---

And, should i ticket doing this for RC? And is the intent then to bump the date as described in +solution, or...?

  --John Abbe.....Wed Aug 05 08:10:55 -0700 2009

---

For multi-edit, suggest changing:

This update included the following changes: edited defusion+visuals edited defusion+list

 

To:

This update included the following changes:

edited defusion+visuals

edited defusion+list

 

  --John Abbe.....Wed Aug 05 08:17:29 -0700 2009

---

(Note to self: Make sure to check references to this card when splitting the ticket; most probably refer to Recent Changes.)

  --John Abbe.....Fri Aug 21 13:27:02 -0700 2009

---

is the email still giving incorrect info? If so we should make a ticket for that.

 

As for the RC, I think this is difficult enough that we'll probably only get to it when there is a charge for seriously cleaning up search results. not sure it's worth ticketing until then.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....Mon Oct 18 16:00:11 -0700 2010

---

Emails have the new format suggested here, but are still giving the wrong editor. (The date was removed, which is fine.)

 

Would like to add a note about RC somewhere, but not clear enough about what you mean by "seriously cleaning up search results" to now if there's a likely ticket or idea on Search+tickets for item or CQL+tickets for item

  --John Abbe.....Sun Feb 13 23:26:11 -0800 2011

---

Er, my tagging assumed that the "in progress" meant this was targetted for 1.11?

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-21 23:53:21 +0000

---

nah, I think this has been "in progress" since 2009. resetting.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-22 03:14:43 +0000

---

Note, we do want certain plus cards to show up in recent in some cases (eg analysis cards on wikirate.org)

---

This should really be "field descendants", not includers.