summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJoey Hess <joey@gnu.kitenet.net>2009-05-19 13:06:35 -0400
committerJoey Hess <joey@gnu.kitenet.net>2009-05-19 13:06:35 -0400
commit53b1c6f559c1d09fbdbc28c8e4d5090dd455cd26 (patch)
treed379bb0acd2dd3e9370c37b27f03989398694977 /doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
parent18695056917a2f34a36e5e89df7f01deff9ab640 (diff)
parent4558457402a4ab6bc795589a2e400fa66144f76e (diff)
Merge commit 'intrigeri/po' into po
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn')
-rw-r--r--doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn29
1 files changed, 26 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
index 5f0de3b5e..61ec53ea8 100644
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
@@ -330,9 +330,7 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
--[[intrigeri]]
> Ok, I've reviewed and merged into my own po branch. It's looking very
-> mergeable. I would still like to go over the `po.pm` code in detail and
-> review it, but it's very complex, and I'm happy with all the changes
-> outside `po.pm`.
+> mergeable.
>
> * Is it worth trying to fix compatability with `indexpages`?
>>
@@ -358,6 +356,31 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
>> disabled, I fear the ones who could do this would maybe think
>> it's blandly impossible and give up.
>>
+
+> * What's the reasoning behind checking that the link plugin
+> is enabled? AFAICS, the same code in the scan hook should
+> also work when other link plugins like camelcase are used.
+> * In `pagetemplate` there is a comment that claims the code
+> relies on `genpage`, but I don't see how it does; it seems
+> to always add a discussion link?
+> * Is there any real reason not to allow removing a translation?
+> I'm imagining a spammy translation, which an admin might not
+> be able to fix, but could remove.
+> * Re the meta title escaping issue worked around by `change`.
+> I suppose this does not only affect meta, but other things
+> at scan time too. Also, handling it only on rebuild feels
+> suspicious -- a refresh could involve changes to multiple
+> pages and trigger the same problem, I think. Also, exposing
+> this rebuild to the user seems really ugly, not confidence inducing.
+>
+> So I wonder if there's a better way. Such as making po, at scan time,
+> re-run the scan hooks, passing them modified content (either converted
+> from po to mdwn or with the escaped stuff cheaply de-escaped). (Of
+> course the scan hook would need to avoid calling itself!)
+>
+> (This doesn't need to block the merge, but I hope it can be addressed
+> eventually..)
+>
> --[[Joey]]
>>
>> --[[intrigeri]]