From: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~willu/ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:26:20 +0000 (-0400) Subject: Thoughts on example setup file X-Git-Tag: 2.54~1^2 X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/commitdiff_plain/6153fd6d88fd41ee12a850652a6903a17ae9edda Thoughts on example setup file --- diff --git a/doc/todo/Make_example_setup_file_consistent.mdwn b/doc/todo/Make_example_setup_file_consistent.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c4157816e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/todo/Make_example_setup_file_consistent.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +The current example [[ikiwiki.setup]] file has a number of options included, but commented out. This is standard. Unfortunately there are two standards for the settings of those commented out options: + + - Have the commented out options showing the default setting, or + - Have the commented out options showing the most common alternate setting. + +Each of these has its advantages. The first makes it clear what the default setting is. The second makes it easy to switch the option on -- you just uncomment the option. + +My issue with ikiwiki's example setup file is that it doesn't appear to be consistent. Looking at the 'svn' entries (the first set of rcs entries), we see that + + svnpath => "trunk", + +is an example of the first type, but + + rcs => "svn", + +is an example of the second type. + +I think things could be improved if a clear decision was made here. Most of the settings seem to be of the second type. Perhaps all that is needed is for settings of the first type to grow a comment: + + svnpath => "trunk", #default + +What do others think?