diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/forum/cleaning_up_discussion_pages_and_the_like.mdwn | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn | 19 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn | 21 |
4 files changed, 41 insertions, 12 deletions
diff --git a/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn b/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn index f8f96b6ca..556d89b65 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ a dead link for every subpage. This is a bug, but fixing it is very tricky. Consider what would happen if example.mdwn were created: example/page.html and the rest of example/* -would need to be updated to change the parentlink from a bare work to a +would need to be updated to change the parentlink from a bare word to a link to the new page. Now if example.mdwn were removed again, they'd need to be updated again. So example/* depends on example. But it's even more tricky, because if example.mdwn is modified, we _don't_ want to rebuild diff --git a/doc/forum/cleaning_up_discussion_pages_and_the_like.mdwn b/doc/forum/cleaning_up_discussion_pages_and_the_like.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 000000000..35ceae59b --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/cleaning_up_discussion_pages_and_the_like.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +For example in [[forum/ikiwiki__39__s_notion_of_time]], should one remove the +text about the implementation bug that has been fixed, or should it stay there, +for reference? --[[tschwinge]] + +> I have no problem with cleaning up obsolete stuff in the forum, tips, etc. +> --[[Joey]] + +That's also what I think: such discussions or comments on [[forum]] discussion +pages, or generally on all pages' [[Discussion]] subpages, can be removed if +either they're simply not valid / interesting / ... anymore, or if they've been +used to improve the *real* documentation. --[[tschwinge]] diff --git a/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn b/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn index 435b12c8c..9920e34bb 100644 --- a/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn +++ b/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn @@ -5,10 +5,6 @@ they're still present in the repository. Shouldn't there be some clean-up at some point for those that have been resolved? Or should all of them be kept online forever? -Likewise, for example in [[forum/ikiwiki__39__s_notion_of_time]], should one -remove the text about the implementation bug that has been fixed, or should it -stay there, for reference? - --[[tschwinge]] > To answer a question with a question, what harm does having the done bugs @@ -18,5 +14,16 @@ stay there, for reference? > running older versions of the Ikiwiki software may find the page explaining > that the bug is fixed if they perform a search. -- [[Jon]] -> I like to keep old bugs around. OTOH, I have no problem with cleaning up -> obsolete stuff in the forum, tips, etc. --[[Joey]] +> I like to keep old bugs around. --[[Joey]] + +So, I guess it depends on whether you want to represent the development of the +software (meaning: which bugs are open, which are fixed) *(a)* in a snapshot of +the repository (a checkout; that is, what you see rendered on +<http://ikiwiki.info/>), or *(b)* if that information is to be contained in the +backing repository's revision history only. Both approaches are valid. For +people used to using Git for accessing a project's history, *(b)* is what +they're used to, but for those poor souls ;-) that only use a web browser to +access this database, *(a)* is the more useful approach indeed. For me, using +Git, it is a bit of a hindrance, as, when doing a full-text search for a +keyword on a checkout, I'd frequently hit pages that reported a bug, but are +tagged `done` by now. --[[tschwinge]] diff --git a/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn b/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn index 341a52953..33a139784 100644 --- a/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn +++ b/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn @@ -48,6 +48,20 @@ contain the \[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]. > `tagged(open_issue_hurd)` in its pagespec should do that. --[[Joey]] +>> Well, that's exactly what this page contains: \[[!map +>> pages="tagged(open_issue_hurd) and !open_issues and !*/discussion" +>> show=title]] +>> +>> This is currently rendered as can be seen on +>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/tag/open_issue_hurd.html>, but I'd imagine +>> it to be rendered by **only** linking to the pages that actually do contain +>> the tag, (**only** the outer leaf ones, which are *capturing stdout and +>> stderr*, *ramdisk*, *syncfs*, ...; but **not** to *hurd*, *debugging*, +>> *translator*, *libstore*, *examples*, ...). Otherwise, the way it's being +>> rendered at the moment, it appears to the reader that *hurd*, *debugging*, +>> *translator*, *libstore*, *examples*, ... were all tagged, too, and not only +>> the outer ones. + ## Anchors -- [[ikiwiki/wikilink/discussion]] ## Default Content for Meta Values -- [[plugins/contrib/default_content_for___42__copyright__42___and___42__license__42__]] @@ -75,7 +89,7 @@ pages could perhaps be passed on to the referred-to page? ## Sendmail -- [[todo/passwordauth:_sendmail_interface]] -## Parentlinks -- [[bugs/non-existing_pages_in_parentlinks]] +## [[bugs/Broken Parentlinks]] ## Discussion Pages of Discussion Pages of... @@ -105,13 +119,10 @@ create a way to modify the `TITLE` template variable suitably. ## [[plugins/inline]] feedfile option Not that important. Git commit b67632cdcdd333cf0a88d03c0f7e6e62921f32c3. This -would be nice to have even when using *usedirs*. Might involve issues as +would be nice to have even when *not* using *usedirs*. Might involve issues as discussed in *N-to-M Mapping of Input and Output Files* on [[plugins/contrib/texinfo]]. -> Do you mean when *not* using usedirs? It is currently supported for usedirs, -> only. --[[Joey]] - ## Unverified -- these may be bugs, but have yet to be verified * ikiwiki doesn't change its internal database when \[[!meta date]] / |