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 <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
