close

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / todo / web_reversion.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn b/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn
index 33fa79aad8474a4d91358ce95d571d01a425da8d..841fc3703952ef3d27042ea93d55296de36ae211 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn
@@ -24,16 +24,16 @@ Implementation plan:
   and refresh site.
 
 Peter Gammie has done an initial implementation of the above.
   and refresh site.
 
 Peter Gammie has done an initial implementation of the above.

-[[!template id=gitbranch branch=peteg/revert author="[[peteg]]"]]
+[[!template id=gitbranch branch=peteg/revert author="[[users/peteg]]"]]

 
 

->> It is on a separate branch now. --[[peteg]]
+>> It is on a separate branch now. --[[users/peteg]]

 
 > Review: --[[Joey]] 
 > 
 > The revert commit will not currently say what web user did the revert.
 > This could be fixed by doing a --no-commit revert first and then using
 > rcs_commit_staged.
 
 > Review: --[[Joey]] 
 > 
 > The revert commit will not currently say what web user did the revert.
 > This could be fixed by doing a --no-commit revert first and then using
 > rcs_commit_staged.

->> Fixed, I think. --[[peteg]]
+>> Fixed, I think. --[[users/peteg]]

 >
 > So I see one thing I completly forgot about is `check_canedit`. Avoiding users
 > using reverting to make changes they would normally not be allowed to do is
 >
 > So I see one thing I completly forgot about is `check_canedit`. Avoiding users
 > using reverting to make changes they would normally not be allowed to do is


@@ -45,17 +45,16 @@ Peter Gammie has done an initial implementation of the above.
 > structure that `rcs_recieve` does. This could be done by using `git revert
 > --no-commit`, and then examining the changes, and then `git reset` to drop
 > them.
 > structure that `rcs_recieve` does. This could be done by using `git revert
 > --no-commit`, and then examining the changes, and then `git reset` to drop
 > them.

->> We can use the existing `git_commit_info` with the patch ID - no need to touch the working directory. -- [[peteg]]
+>> We can use the existing `git_commit_info` with the patch ID - no need to touch the working directory. -- [[users/peteg]]

 > 
 > Then the code that is currently in IkiWiki/Receive.pm, that calls
 > `check_canedit` and `check_canremove` to test the change, can be
 > straightforwardly refactored out, and used for checking reverts too.
 > 
 > Then the code that is currently in IkiWiki/Receive.pm, that calls
 > `check_canedit` and `check_canremove` to test the change, can be
 > straightforwardly refactored out, and used for checking reverts too.

->> Wow, that was easy. :-) -- [[peteg]]
+>> Wow, that was easy. :-) -- [[users/peteg]]

 > 
 > (The data from `rcs_preprevert` could also be used for a confirmation
 > prompt -- it doesn't currently include enough info for diffs, but at
 > least could have a list of changed files.)
 > 
 > (The data from `rcs_preprevert` could also be used for a confirmation
 > prompt -- it doesn't currently include enough info for diffs, but at
 > least could have a list of changed files.)

->> I added `rcs_showpatch` which simply yields the output of `git show <patch-id>`. -- [[peteg]]

 >
 > Note that it's possible for a git repo to have commits that modify wiki
 > files in a subdir, and code files elsewhere. `rcs_preprevert` should
 >
 > Note that it's possible for a git repo to have commits that modify wiki
 > files in a subdir, and code files elsewhere. `rcs_preprevert` should


@@ -63,29 +62,12 @@ Peter Gammie has done an initial implementation of the above.
 >> Taken care of by refactoring `rcs_receive` in `git.pm`
 >> I've tested it lightly in my single-user setup. It's a little nasty that the `attachment` plugin
 >> gets used to check whether attachments are allowed -- there really should be a hook for that.
 >> Taken care of by refactoring `rcs_receive` in `git.pm`
 >> I've tested it lightly in my single-user setup. It's a little nasty that the `attachment` plugin
 >> gets used to check whether attachments are allowed -- there really should be a hook for that.

+>>> I agree, but have not figured out a way to make a hook work yet.
+>>> --[[Joey]] 

 >>
 >>

->> Please look it over and tell me what else needs fixing... -- [[peteg]]
+>> Please look it over and tell me what else needs fixing... -- [[users/peteg]]

 
 

->>> I have made my own revert branch and put a few fixes in there
->>> [[!template id=gitbranch branch=origin/revert author="[[joey]]"]]
->>> (and fixed all the indention..). Issues I noticed but have not gotten
->>> to: --[[Joey]] 
->>>> Please change the git pointer above, then. I will work on your branch. -- [[peteg]]
->>>
->>> * `rcs_diff` already exists; why add `rcs_showpatch`?
->>>> If `rcs_diff` is intended for human consumption, by all means we can use that. -- [[peteg]]
+>>> I have made my own revert branch and put a few^Wseveral fixes in there.
+>>> All merged to master now! --[[Joey]] 

 
 

->>> * Would it be better for `rcs_revert` to not commit, and
->>>   `rcs_commit_staged` to then be used? This would work for git, but
->>>   maybe other RCSs would be problimatic. It would simplifiy the
->>>   interface and allow for future mulitple-revert interfaces.
->>> * I quite don't understand why one caller of `git_parse_changes`
->>>   needs it to chdir, and not the other one. It's running
->>>   in the same git repo either way, and git doesn't need
->>>   `git show` to run in a subdir at all..
->>>> I was aping (preserving) what was already there. I don't understand what you say about `git show` - it must run under $srcdir, surely? And empirically the CGI process wasn't in the right place. By all means simplify that. -- [[peteg]]
-
->>> * Probably needs to untaint the revs passed in.
->>> * Seems backwards for `rcs_preprevert` to import and
->>>   use `IkiWiki::Receive`.
->>>> Indeed. This is saying that the checking code in IkiWiki::Receive is in the wrong place. I think it would be better to set up some general hooks and shuffle it into a plugin, for then other plugins that maintain special files in the repo can have a say about validity. -- [[peteg]]
+[[done]]