Merge branch 'master' of ssh://git.ikiwiki.info/srv/git/ikiwiki.info

diff --git a/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn b/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn
index f8f96b6cadbb45ce30004878ad7c59fd01369074..556d89b65eb0515de9ff250ed85c2649ba6382c1 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/broken_parentlinks.mdwn
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ a dead link for every subpage.
 
 This is a bug, but fixing it is very tricky. Consider what would happen if
 example.mdwn were created: example/page.html and the rest of example/*
-would need to be updated to change the parentlink from a bare work to a
+would need to be updated to change the parentlink from a bare word to a
 link to the new page. Now if example.mdwn were removed again, they'd need
 to be updated again. So example/* depends on example. But it's even more
 tricky, because if example.mdwn is modified, we _don't_ want to rebuild

diff --git a/doc/forum/cleaning_up_discussion_pages_and_the_like.mdwn b/doc/forum/cleaning_up_discussion_pages_and_the_like.mdwn
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..35ceae5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/forum/cleaning_up_discussion_pages_and_the_like.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+For example in [[forum/ikiwiki__39__s_notion_of_time]], should one remove the
+text about the implementation bug that has been fixed, or should it stay there,
+for reference?  --[[tschwinge]]
+
+> I have no problem with cleaning up obsolete stuff in the forum, tips, etc.
+> --[[Joey]]
+
+That's also what I think: such discussions or comments on [[forum]] discussion
+pages, or generally on all pages' [[Discussion]] subpages, can be removed if
+either they're simply not valid / interesting / ... anymore, or if they've been
+used to improve the *real* documentation.  --[[tschwinge]]

diff --git a/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn b/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn
index 435b12c8c9511c8473e4ab83db90a1e0fc0eca53..9920e34bbca55d3df6bf334cc341e03e41060b2a 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn
+++ b/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn
@@ -5,10 +5,6 @@ they're still present in the repository.
 Shouldn't there be some clean-up at some point for those that have been
 resolved?  Or should all of them be kept online forever?
 
-Likewise, for example in [[forum/ikiwiki__39__s_notion_of_time]], should one
-remove the text about the implementation bug that has been fixed, or should it
-stay there, for reference?
-
 --[[tschwinge]]
 
 > To answer a question with a question, what harm does having the done bugs
@@ -18,5 +14,16 @@ stay there, for reference?
 > running older versions of the Ikiwiki software may find the page explaining
 > that the bug is fixed if they perform a search. -- [[Jon]]
 
-> I like to keep old bugs around. OTOH, I have no problem with cleaning up
-> obsolete stuff in the forum, tips, etc. --[[Joey]]
+> I like to keep old bugs around. --[[Joey]]
+
+So, I guess it depends on whether you want to represent the development of the
+software (meaning: which bugs are open, which are fixed) *(a)* in a snapshot of
+the repository (a checkout; that is, what you see rendered on
+<http://ikiwiki.info/>), or *(b)* if that information is to be contained in the
+backing repository's revision history only.  Both approaches are valid.  For
+people used to using Git for accessing a project's history, *(b)* is what
+they're used to, but for those poor souls ;-) that only use a web browser to
+access this database, *(a)* is the more useful approach indeed.  For me, using
+Git, it is a bit of a hindrance, as, when doing a full-text search for a
+keyword on a checkout, I'd frequently hit pages that reported a bug, but are
+tagged `done` by now.  --[[tschwinge]]

diff --git a/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn b/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn
index 341a5295346c06c8067d734f48f85b802f22f7d6..33a139784d04469e525e7792a1daf4f6927f7835 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn
+++ b/doc/users/tschwinge.mdwn
@@ -48,6 +48,20 @@ contain the \[[!tag open_issue_hurd]].
 
 > `tagged(open_issue_hurd)` in its pagespec should do that. --[[Joey]]
 
+>> Well, that's exactly what this page contains: \[[!map
+>> pages="tagged(open_issue_hurd) and !open_issues and !*/discussion"
+>> show=title]]
+>> 
+>> This is currently rendered as can be seen on
+>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/tag/open_issue_hurd.html>, but I'd imagine
+>> it to be rendered by **only** linking to the pages that actually do contain
+>> the tag, (**only** the outer leaf ones, which are *capturing stdout and
+>> stderr*, *ramdisk*, *syncfs*, ...; but **not** to *hurd*, *debugging*,
+>> *translator*, *libstore*, *examples*, ...).  Otherwise, the way it's being
+>> rendered at the moment, it appears to the reader that *hurd*, *debugging*,
+>> *translator*, *libstore*, *examples*, ... were all tagged, too, and not only
+>> the outer ones.
+
 ## Anchors -- [[ikiwiki/wikilink/discussion]]
 
 ## Default Content for Meta Values -- [[plugins/contrib/default_content_for___42__copyright__42___and___42__license__42__]]
@@ -75,7 +89,7 @@ pages could perhaps be passed on to the referred-to page?
 
 ## Sendmail -- [[todo/passwordauth:_sendmail_interface]]
 
-## Parentlinks -- [[bugs/non-existing_pages_in_parentlinks]]
+## [[bugs/Broken Parentlinks]]
 
 ## Discussion Pages of Discussion Pages of...
 
@@ -105,13 +119,10 @@ create a way to modify the `TITLE` template variable suitably.
 ## [[plugins/inline]] feedfile option
 
 Not that important.  Git commit b67632cdcdd333cf0a88d03c0f7e6e62921f32c3.  This
-would be nice to have even when using *usedirs*.  Might involve issues as
+would be nice to have even when *not* using *usedirs*.  Might involve issues as
 discussed in *N-to-M Mapping of Input and Output Files* on
 [[plugins/contrib/texinfo]].
 
-> Do you mean when *not* using usedirs? It is currently supported for usedirs,
-> only. --[[Joey]] 
-
 ## Unverified -- these may be bugs, but have yet to be verified
 
   * ikiwiki doesn't change its internal database when \[[!meta date]] /