X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/aba655c6e0d5c4b0eaa3d113129d6de58f4541c2..18695056917a2f34a36e5e89df7f01deff9ab640:/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
index f2d46c391..5f0de3b5e 100644
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
@@ -248,6 +248,22 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >>
 >>> 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.
@@ -258,7 +274,22 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >>
 >>> 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
@@ -277,6 +308,9 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >> 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`.
@@ -286,3 +320,44 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >> --[[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]]