Added a comment: how to fix '"do" parameter missing' on nginx-fcgi?

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

diff --git a/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn b/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn
index 50cb13fad1be4770025fe89e4ddc4d0cc046029b..736d674feb242b20e7daadc1a5fe6d3cae00bbc0 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn
@@ -24,14 +24,17 @@ 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/master author="[[peteg]]"]]
+[[!template id=gitbranch branch=peteg/revert author="[[peteg]]"]]
+
+>> It is on a separate branch now. --[[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]]
+>

 > 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
 > tricky. I guess that a easy first pass would be to only let admins do it.
 > 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
 > tricky. I guess that a easy first pass would be to only let admins do it.


@@ -42,15 +45,29 @@ 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]]

 > 
 > 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]]

 > 
 > (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.)

-> 
+>

 > 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
 > detect changes outside the wiki dir, and fail, like `rcs_receive` does.
 > 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
 > detect changes outside the wiki dir, and fail, like `rcs_receive` does.

+>> 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]]
+
+>>> I have made my own revert branch and put a few^Wseveral fixes in there.
+>>> All merged to master now! --[[Joey]] 
+
+[[done]]