>>
>>> My wording was unclear, I meant exposing. --[[Joey]]
>>>
+>>>> I guess I still don't know Perl's `our` enough to understand clearly.
+>>>> No matter whether these variables are declared with `my` or `our`,
+>>>> any plugin can `use IkiWiki::Render` and then access
+>>>> `$IkiWiki::backlinks`, as already does e.g. the pagestat plugin.
+>>>> So I guess your problem is not with letting plugins use these
+>>>> variables, but with them being visible for every piece of
+>>>> (possibly external) code called from `Render.pm`. Am I right?
+>>>> If I understand clearly, using a brace block to lexically enclose
+>>>> these two `our` declarations, alongside with the `calculate_backlinks`
+>>>> and `backlinks` subs definitions, would be a proper solution, wouldn't
+>>>> it? --[[intrigeri]]
+>>>>
+>>>>> No, %backlinks and the backlinks() function are not the same thing.
+>>>>> The variable is lexically scoped; only accessible from inside
+>>>>> `Render.pm` --[[Joey]]
+>>>>
> * What is this `IkiWiki::nicepagetitle` and why are you
> injecting it into that namespace when only your module uses it?
> Actually, I can't even find a caller of it in your module.
>>
>>> It would probably be good if I could merge this branch without
>>> having to worry about also immediatly merging that one. --[[Joey]]
->>
+>>>
+>>>> I removed all dependencies on my `meta` branch from the `po` one.
+>>>> This implied removing the `po_translation_status_in_links` and
+>>>> `po_strictly_refresh_backlinks` features, and every link text is now
+>>>> displayed in the master language. I believe the removed features really
+>>>> enhance user experience of a translatable wiki, that's why I was
+>>>> initially supposing the `meta` branch would be merged first.
+>>>> IMHO, we'll need to come back to this quite soon after `po` is merged.
+>>>> --[[intrigeri]]
+>>>>
+>>>> Maybe you should keep those features in a meta-po branch?
+>>>> I did a cursory review of your meta last night, have some issues with it,
+>>>> but this page isn't the place for a detailed review. --[[Joey]]
+>>>>
+>>>>> Done. --[[intrigeri]]
+>>>
> * I'm very fearful of the `add_depends` in `postscan`.
> Does this make every page depend on every page that links
> to it? Won't this absurdly bloat the dependency pagespecs
>> help having a nice and consistent translated wiki, but as it can
>> also involve problems, I just turned it into an option.
>>
+>>> This has been completely removed for now due to the removal of
+>>> the dependency on my `meta` branch. --[[intrigeri]]
+>>
> * The po4a Suggests should be versioned to the first version
> that can be used safely, and that version documented in
> `plugins/po.mdwn`.
>> --[[intrigeri]]
>
> --[[Joey]]
+
+I reverted the `%backlinks` and `$backlinks_calculated` exposing.
+The issue they were solving probably will arise again when I'll work
+on my meta branch again (i.e. when the simplified po one is merged),
+but the po thing is supposed to work without these ugly `our`.
+Seems like it was the last unaddressed item from Joey's review, so I'm
+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.
+>
+> * Is it worth trying to fix compatability with `indexpages`?
+>>
+>> Supporting `usedirs` being enabled or disabled was already quite
+>> hard IIRC, so supporting all four combinations of `usedirs` and
+>> `indexpages` settings will probably be painful. I propose we forget
+>> about it until someone reports he/she badly needs it, and then
+>> we'll see what can be done.
+>>
+> * Would it make sense to go ahead and modify `page.tmpl` to use
+> OTHERLANGUAGES and PERCENTTRANSLATED, instead of documenting how to modify it?
+>>
+>> Done in my branch.
+>>
+> * Would it be better to disable po support for pages that use unsupported
+> or poorly-supported markup languages?
+>
+>> I prefer keeping it enabled, as:
+>>
+>> * most wiki markups "almost work"
+>> * when someone needs one of these to be fully supported, it's not
+>> that hard to add dedicated support for it to po4a; if it were
+>> 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.
+>>
+>> That's right, fixed.
+>>
+> * 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?
+>>
+>> It relies on IkiWiki::Render's `genpage` as this function sets the
+>> `discussionlink` template param iff it considers a discussion link
+>> should appear on the current page. That's why I'm testing
+>> `$template->param('discussionlink')`.
+>>
+>>> Maybe I was really wondering why it says it could lead to a broken
+>>> link if the cgiurl is disabled. I think I see why now: Discussionlink
+>>> will be set to a link to an existing disucssion page, even if cgi is
+>>> disabled -- but there's no guarantee of a translated discussion page
+>>> existing in that case. *However*, htmllink actually checks
+>>> for this case, and will avoid generating a broken link so AFAICS, the
+>>> comment is actually innacurate.. what will really happen in this case
+>>> is discussionlink will be set to a non-link translation of
+>>> "discussion". Also, I consider `$config{cgi}` and `%links` (etc)
+>>> documented parts of the plugin interface, which won't change; po could
+>>> rely on them to avoid this minor problem. --[[Joey]]
+>
+> * 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.
+>>
+>> On the other hand, allowing one to "remove" a translation would
+>> probably lead to misunderstandings, as such a "removed" translation
+>> page would appear back as soon as it is "removed" (with no strings
+>> translated, though). I think an admin would be in a position to
+>> delete the spammy `.po` file by hand using whatever VCS is in use.
+>> Not that I'd really care, but I am slightly in favour of the way
+>> it currently works.
+>>
+>>> That would definitly be confusing. It sounds to me like if we end up
+>>> needing to allow web-based deletion of spammy translations, it will
+>>> need improvements to the deletion UI to de-confuse that. It's fine to
+>>> put that off until needed --[[Joey]]
+>>
+> * 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]]
+>>
+>> I'll think about it soon.
+>>
+>> --[[intrigeri]]
+>>
+>>> Did you get a chance to? --[[Joey]]