Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Fabrice Niessen writes: > >> Could that be stated clearly in the output? > > You should ask to whom implemented Worg.
And that is? Bastien? >> The thing is that I did not touch those links, as you can see in my >> commit. So, somehow, Org became more strict. And the fact that that >> file wasn't modified for some time means it wasn't re-exported for >> the same period; hence, the problem was never found -- until someone >> modifies whatever in the file... > > Correct. > >> IOW, shouldn't all files be published each time, to spot such >> problems as soon as they become problems (because of syntax changes, >> for example), instead of being much later, whenever the file is >> changed (if it ever is)? > > So you get 50-100 files to fix instead of the one you modified? No much fun, that's right. > IMO, it would be a waste to re-publish unmodified files. You only have > to consider syntax changes when updating a file. OTOH, I find it uncomfortable to have a "project" (in the publishing sense) which is, in fact, not publishable anymore, because many files won't export anymore -- some could even still rely on Org 7... But I understand your point. The question comes down to what we want: a uniform, coherent set of Org files (all up-to-date, and exportable) or a set of HTML pages which we don't touch anymore if their Org counterpart is not touched either. > Note that you need to have a very recent Org (less than 7 hours) to use > it. Fixed the problems. Now that page is up-to-date on Worg again. Thanks. Best regards, Fabrice -- Fabrice Niessen Leuven, Belgium http://www.pirilampo.org/
