move security to discussion

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / plugins / contrib / po.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
index 7eff8fa1c14c5b41dd96f06e76a7382464a82424..5f0de3b5e96d579bc0a7b8a9fb11b5aa34d0327d 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
@@ -259,6 +259,10 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >>>> these two `our` declarations, alongside with the `calculate_backlinks`
 >>>> and `backlinks` subs definitions, would be a proper solution, wouldn't
 >>>> it? --[[intrigeri]]
 >>>> 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?
 >>>> 
 > * What is this `IkiWiki::nicepagetitle` and why are you
 >   injecting it into that namespace when only your module uses it?


@@ -279,6 +283,12 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >>>> 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]]
 >>>> 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
 >>> 
 > * I'm very fearful of the `add_depends` in `postscan`. 
 >   Does this make every page depend on every page that links


@@ -310,3 +320,44 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >> --[[intrigeri]]
 > 
 > --[[Joey]] 
 >> --[[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. I would still like to go over the `po.pm` code in detail and 
+> review it, but it's very complex, and I'm happy with all the changes
+> outside `po.pm`. 
+> 
+> * 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.
+>> 
+> --[[Joey]] 
+>> 
+>> --[[intrigeri]]