>>>> 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?
>>>> 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
>> --[[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`. (Reviewed the first 520 lines, up to injected
+> functions.)
+>
+> * 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.
+>>
+>
+> * What's the reasoning behind checking that the link plugin
+> is enabled? AFAICS, the same code in the scan hook should
+> also work when other link plugins like camelcase are used.
+> * In `pagetemplate` there is a comment that claims the code
+> relies on `genpage`, but I don't see how it does; it seems
+> to always add a discussion link?
+> * Is there any real reason not to allow removing a translation?
+> I'm imagining a spammy translation, which an admin might not
+> be able to fix, but could remove.
+>
+> --[[Joey]]
+>>
+>> --[[intrigeri]]
sipb-www / ikiwiki.git / blobdiff