Thanks for the quick answers. In case I'm not supposed to run
tool/sitegen myself, just let me know ;)
cheers
chris
On 06/06/2013 03:54 PM, Andreas Lochbihler wrote:
Sorry for the confusion, I never ran sitegen.py myself because I thought
that to be the priviledge of the editors. As Gerwin has found out, I
dropped these links manually in 376347e6131a because they all were
broken after the update on sourceforge. I decided not to update them for
three reasons:
1. Most other entries do not link to changeset revisions; Category is
now the only exception. Often they don't even mention the revision ID at
all.
2. It is unclear when the links will break again if they are not checked
automatically.
3. On the entry page, the links are visually the most prominent part of
the change history, although they are the least relevant bit of
information in the change history.
If sitegen.py automatically links to the changesets, I'd be happy. But
then, I suggest that the links are not formatted as highlighted as they
are now.
Andreas
On 06/06/13 08:09, Gerwin Klein wrote:
It looks like Andreas dropped these manually for his entries, so
nothing really went wrong with the tools, he was just reacting to the
sourceforge update leading to broken links.
The URL scheme for linking to revision IDs in the new sourceforge
setup is
http://sourceforge.net/p/afp/code/ci/change-set-hash
The short hashes that we normally use seem to work fine (it shows you
long ones by default when you browse).
It's up to the authors to have change set ids as links or not, so I'm
not adding them back in myself. If Andreas is reading this and prefers
having them in, by all means put them back.
We haven't really made up our minds if developers should run
admin/sitegen after updating history in metadata. I'd say, if you feel
comfortable using sitegen and check that your changes are confined to
history (as Chris apparently did), this is Ok to do. If you're not
feeling comfortable doing this yourself, you change will just show up
on the devel website the next time someone runs sitegen.
We could try make sitegen.py aware of hg revision ids and make it link
them automatically. If there's a volunteer for implementing this, I'm
happy to consider this.
Cheers,
Gerwin
On 06.06.2013, at 1:52 PM, Gerwin Klein <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'll have a look at it. The links shouldn't be dropped, something is
going wrong there.
Cheers,
Gerwin
On 06/06/2013, at 1:48 PM, Christian Sternagel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Btw: the links do not seem to work anyway. But why not replace them
with working links instead of just dropping them?
On 06/06/2013 12:40 PM, Christian Sternagel wrote:
Dear all,
to update the change history of one of my AFP entries, I ran
admin/sitegen. I noticed that as a result some other sites changed
too.
All the changes where along the lines of
-(revision <a
href="http://afp.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/afp/afp/rev/f74a8be156a7";>f74a8be156a7</a>)<br>
+(revision f74a8be156a7)<br>
in corresponding *.shtml files, i.e., links to changesets are replaced
by the mere short-form changeset ID. Is this on purpose or did I do
something wrong? (I will of course refrain from pushing any changes
until I got an answer.)
cheers
chris
_______________________________________________
isabelle-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
