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 <gerwin.kl...@nicta.com.au> 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 <c.sterna...@gmail.com> 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 >> isabelle-...@in.tum.de >> https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev > > > ________________________________ > > The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal > professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited > accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments. > _______________________________________________ > isabelle-dev mailing list > isabelle-...@in.tum.de > https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev _______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list isabelle-...@in.tum.de https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
