> Are approved revisions really a branch or just a tag somewhere in a linear version history? A Git branch is just a different head, but no, those things don't

> Are approved revisions really a branch or just a tag somewhere in a linear version history? A Git branch is just a different head, but no, those things don't have divergent histories. They're just moving tags. Anyway, semantics aside I meant that they're doing things now that maps effortlessly to a scm. > Having n branches of a Wikipedia article would be frowned upon Not if it was well supported. Saying "hey, I modified the article in my own private branch, check it out and merge it if you want" would beat a long argument on a talk page any day. Branch support doesn't need to entail multiple publicly accessible (as in the stuff normal readers see) versions of articles. > Also, Git-style branches only make sense as alternative branches of the entire repository What? No, they'd also make sense even if there was one Git repository per page. > you'd have to essentially have one Git repository per article, at > which point you're probably better off with a different type of > backend. We won't know until we try, will we? But there are lots of advantages to using a well understood and simple data format with multiple implementations over a custom schema, but of course a custom format has its own advantages.