+>>>> If `rcs_diff` is intended for human consumption, by all means we can use that. -- [[peteg]]
+
>>> * Would it be better for `rcs_revert` to not commit, and
>>> `rcs_commit_staged` to then be used? This would work for git, but
>>> maybe other RCSs would be problimatic. It would simplifiy the
>>> * Would it be better for `rcs_revert` to not commit, and
>>> `rcs_commit_staged` to then be used? This would work for git, but
>>> maybe other RCSs would be problimatic. It would simplifiy the
@@ -79,6+82,9 @@ Peter Gammie has done an initial implementation of the above.
>>> needs it to chdir, and not the other one. It's running
>>> in the same git repo either way, and git doesn't need
>>> `git show` to run in a subdir at all..
>>> needs it to chdir, and not the other one. It's running
>>> in the same git repo either way, and git doesn't need
>>> `git show` to run in a subdir at all..
+>>>> I was aping (preserving) what was already there. I don't understand what you say about `git show` - it must run under $srcdir, surely? And empirically the CGI process wasn't in the right place. By all means simplify that. -- [[peteg]]
+
>>> * Probably needs to untaint the revs passed in.
>>> * Seems backwards for `rcs_preprevert` to import and
>>> use `IkiWiki::Receive`.
>>> * Probably needs to untaint the revs passed in.
>>> * Seems backwards for `rcs_preprevert` to import and
>>> use `IkiWiki::Receive`.
+>>>> Indeed. This is saying that the checking code in IkiWiki::Receive is in the wrong place. I think it would be better to set up some general hooks and shuffle it into a plugin, for then other plugins that maintain special files in the repo can have a say about validity. -- [[peteg]]