-> Some code refers to `oldtypedlinks`, and other to `oldlinktypes`.
->
-> I'm curious what your reasoning was for adding a new variable
-> rather than using `pagestate`. Was it only because you needed
-> the `old` version to detect change, or was there other complexity?
->
-> I have not convinced myself this is a real problem, but..
-> If a page has a typed link, there seems to be no way to tell
-> if it also has a separate, regular link. `add_link` will add
-> to `@links` when adding a typed, or untyped link. If only untyped
-> links were recorded there, one could tell the difference. But then
-> typed links would not show up at all in eg, a linkmap,
-> unless it was changed to check for typed links too.
-> (Or, regular links could be recorded in typedlinks too,
-> with a empty type. (Bloaty.))
->
-> I suspect we could get away without having `tagged_is_strict`
-> without too much transitional trouble. --[[Joey]]
+## Review
+
+Some code refers to `oldtypedlinks`, and other to `oldlinktypes`. --[[Joey]]
+
+> Oops, I'll fix that. That must mean missing test coverage, too :-(
+> --s
+
+>> A test suite for the dependency resolver *would* be nice. --[[Joey]]
+
+>>> Bug fixed, I think. A test suite for the dependency resolver seems
+>>> more ambitious than I want to get into right now, but I added a
+>>> unit test for this part of it... --s
+
+I'm curious what your reasoning was for adding a new variable
+rather than using `pagestate`. Was it only because you needed
+the `old` version to detect change, or was there other complexity?
+--J
+
+> You seemed to be more in favour of adding it to the core in
+> your proposal above, so I assumed that'd be more likely to be
+> accepted :-) I don't mind one way or the other - `%typedlinks`
+> costs one core variable, but saves one level of hash nesting. If
+> you're not sure either, then I think the decision should come down
+> to which one is easier to document clearly - I'm still unhappy with
+> my docs for `%typedlinks`, so I'll try to write docs for it as
+> `pagestate` and see if they work any better. --s
+
+>> On reflection, I don't think it's any better as a pagestate, and
+>> the contents of pagestates (so far) aren't documented for other
+>> plugins' consumption, so I'm inclined to leave it as-is, unless
+>> you want to veto that. Loose rationale: it needs special handling
+>> in the core to be a dependency type (I re-used the existing link
+>> type), it's API beyond a single plugin, and it's really part of
+>> the core parallel to pagestate rather than being tied to a
+>> specific plugin. Also, I'd need to special-case it to have
+>> ikiwiki not delete it from the index, unless I introduced a
+>> dummy typedlinks plugin (or just hook) that did nothing... --s
+
+I have not convinced myself this is a real problem, but..
+If a page has a typed link, there seems to be no way to tell
+if it also has a separate, regular link. `add_link` will add
+to `@links` when adding a typed, or untyped link. If only untyped
+links were recorded there, one could tell the difference. But then
+typed links would not show up at all in eg, a linkmap,
+unless it was changed to check for typed links too.
+(Or, regular links could be recorded in typedlinks too,
+with a empty type. (Bloaty.)) --J
+
+> I think I like the semantics as-is - I can't think of any
+> reason why you'd want to ask the question "does A link to B,
+> not counting tags and other typed links?". A typed link is
+> still a link, in my mind at least. --s
+
+>> Me neither, let's not worry about it. --[[Joey]]
+
+I suspect we could get away without having `tagged_is_strict`
+without too much transitional trouble. --[[Joey]]
+
+> If you think so, I can delete about 5 LoC. I don't particularly
+> care either way; [[Jon]] expressed concern about people relying
+> on the current semantics, on one of the pages requesting this
+> change. --s
+
+>> Removed in a newer version of the branch. --s
+
+I might have been wrong to introduce `typedlink(tag foo)`. It's not
+very user-friendly, and is more useful as a backend for other plugins
+that as a feature in its own right - any plugin introducing a link
+type will probably also want to have its own preprocessor directive
+to set that link type, and its own pagespec function to match it.
+I wonder whether to make a `typedlink` plugin that has the typedlink
+pagespec match function and a new `\[[!typedlink to="foo" type="bar"]]`
+though... --[[smcv]]
+
+> I agree, per-type matchers are more friendly and I'm not enamored of the
+> multi-parameter pagespec syntax. --[[Joey]]
+
+>> Removed in a newer version of the branch. I re-introduced it as a
+>> plugin in `smcv/typedlink`, but I don't think we really need it. --s
+
+----
+
+I am ready to merge this, but I noticed one problem -- since `match_tagged`
+now only matches pages with the tag linktype, a wiki will need to be
+rebuilt on upgrade in order to get the linktype of existing tags in it
+recorded. So there needs to be a NEWS item about this and
+the postinst modified to force the rebuild.
+
+> Done, although you'll need to plug in an appropriate version number when
+> you release it. Is there a distinctive reminder string you grep for
+> during releases? I've used `UNRELEASED` for now. --[[smcv]]
+
+Also, the ready branch adds `typedlink()` to [[ikiwiki/pagespec]],
+but you removed that feature as documented above.
+--[[Joey]]
+
+> [[Done]]. --s