comment response

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

diff --git a/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn b/doc/todo/web_reversion.mdwn
index 4335b3fbf65ad4290148a4472037d3e5de7bbdaa..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


@@ -45,12 +45,12 @@ 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
 > 
 > (The data from `rcs_preprevert` could also be used for a confirmation
 > prompt -- it doesn't currently include enough info for diffs, but at


@@ -65,16 +65,9 @@ Peter Gammie has done an initial implementation of the above.
 >>> I agree, but have not figured out a way to make a hook work yet.
 >>> --[[Joey]] 
 >>
 >>> 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]]
+>>> I have made my own revert branch and put a few^Wseveral fixes in there.
+>>> All merged to master now! --[[Joey]] 

 
 

->>> * 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]]
+[[done]]