X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/6cde77d5d46fd8b7e3fa711fa535c6a3de834b1c..7d4496d5216fb4f56b49f712c808e660cd19389c:/doc/bugs/template_creation_error.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/bugs/template_creation_error.mdwn b/doc/bugs/template_creation_error.mdwn
index 5d27c3472..f14652ed8 100644
--- a/doc/bugs/template_creation_error.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/template_creation_error.mdwn
@@ -110,8 +110,6 @@ Please, let me know what to do to avoid this kind of error.
 >
 > --[[smcv]]
 
->> [[!template id=gitbranch author="[[smcv]]" branch=smcv/definetemplate]]
->> [[!tag patch]]
 >> OK, here is a branch implementing what I said. It adds the `definetemplate`
 >> directive to [[plugins/goodstuff]] as its last commit.
 >>
@@ -195,3 +193,28 @@ Please, let me know what to do to avoid this kind of error.
 >>>>> the right thing to do in this situation.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> --[[chrysn]]
+
+>>>>>> [[!template id=gitbranch author="[[smcv]]" branch=smcv/ready/templatebody
+         browse=http://git.pseudorandom.co.uk/smcv/ikiwiki.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ready/templatebody]]
+>>>>>> [[!tag patch]]
+>>>>>> Branch and directive renamed to `ready/templatebody` as chrysn suggested.
+>>>>>> It's on-by-default now (or will be if that branch is merged).
+>>>>>> Joey, any chance you could review this?
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> There is one known buglet: `template_syntax.t` asserts that the entire
+>>>>>> file is a valid HTML::Template, whereas it would ideally be doing the
+>>>>>> same logic as IkiWiki itself. I don't think that's serious. --[[smcv]]
+
+>>>>>>> Looking over this, I notice it adds a hash containing all scanned
+>>>>>>> files. This seems to me to be potentially a scalability problem on
+>>>>>>> rebuild of a site with many pages. Ikiwiki already keeps a lot
+>>>>>>> of info in memory, and this adds to it, for what is a fairly
+>>>>>>> minor reason. It seems to me there should be a way to avoid this. --[[Joey]] 
+
+>>>>>>>> Maybe. Are plugins expected to cope with scanning the same
+>>>>>>>> page more than once? If so, it's just a tradeoff between
+>>>>>>>> "spend more time scanning the template repeatedly" and
+>>>>>>>> "spend more memory on avoiding it", and it would be OK to
+>>>>>>>> omit that, or reduce it to a set of scanned *templates*
+>>>>>>>> (in practice that would mean scanning each template twice
+>>>>>>>> in a rebuild). --s