X-Git-Url: https://sipb.mit.edu/gitweb.cgi/ikiwiki.git/blobdiff_plain/220811c46f8bbc0e39d032a36612fb8819386f64..d21087205caa025a23bd424618bc78ecc5533902:/doc/roadmap/discussion.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/roadmap/discussion.mdwn b/doc/roadmap/discussion.mdwn
index b9ad5d10e..8233b1990 100644
--- a/doc/roadmap/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/roadmap/discussion.mdwn
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ backwards compatibility problems. Should this be marked as a future plan, perhap
 major version number like 2.0? --Ethan
 
 Yes, I'm looking at making this kind of change at 2.0, added to the list.
+(Update: Didn't make it in 2.0 or 3.0...)
 However, I have doubts that it makes good sense to go relative by default.
 While it's not consitent with links, it seems to work better overall to
 have pagespecs be absolute by default, IMHO. --[[Joey]]
@@ -12,7 +13,7 @@ them to be absolute, but I definitely remember tripping over absolute
 pagespecs a few times when I was just starting out. Thus I think we've
 learned to accept it as natural, where a new user wouldn't.
 
-* bugs, todo, news, blog, users, sandbox, and patchqueue 
+* bugs, todo, news, blog, users, and sandbox
   are all at "toplevel", so they are equivalent whether 
   pagespecs are absolute or relative.
 * soc doesn't refer to any pages explicitly so it doesn't matter
@@ -28,4 +29,4 @@ learned to accept it as natural, where a new user wouldn't.
   right now)
 
 Maybe inline should use relative pagespecs by default, and other plugins 
-don't? --Ethan
\ No newline at end of file
+don't? --Ethan