MoinMoin: MoinMoinChat/Logs/moin-dev/2007-11-10

2007-11-10T03:13:28  <johill> ThomasWaldmann: http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/b43#devicefirmware
2007-11-10T03:13:33  <johill> why is that 1, 4, 7?
2007-11-10T03:13:41  <johill> I thought . paragraph shouldn't inc the counter??
2007-11-10T11:16:33  <ThomasWaldmann> johill: no
2007-11-10T11:17:07  <ThomasWaldmann> . or * or 1. will just create <li> when used within some list
2007-11-10T11:17:52  <johill> yeah it's confusing
2007-11-10T11:17:55  <ThomasWaldmann> they only create <ol> or <ul> when level changes
2007-11-10T11:18:01  <johill> so . will inc the counter but not show a number?
2007-11-10T11:18:06  <johill> why do I get 1/4/7?
2007-11-10T11:18:41  <ThomasWaldmann> because you stole the others with .
2007-11-10T11:19:43  <ThomasWaldmann> the only thing special about . is that it uses some style that suppresses display of the bullet
2007-11-10T11:19:54  <johill> so how am I supposed to do multi-paragraph text within a list item?
2007-11-10T11:20:00  <ThomasWaldmann> (or whatever there is at the beginning)
2007-11-10T11:20:32  <ThomasWaldmann> for doing what you did, just indent more
2007-11-10T11:22:01  <johill> no that doesn't work
2007-11-10T11:22:04  <johill> it indents more
2007-11-10T11:22:22  <johill> I don't want extra indent
2007-11-10T11:22:33  <johill> also, it then doesn't create two parapgrahps
2007-11-10T11:22:41  <johill> I think multiple paragraphs wihin a list are just not possible
2007-11-10T11:22:43  <johill> too bad
2007-11-10T11:22:51  <johill> an empty line should imho always create a paragraph
2007-11-10T11:25:35  <ThomasWaldmann> iirc that will terminate the whole list
2007-11-10T11:25:39  <johill> no
2007-11-10T11:25:41  <johill> it will not
2007-11-10T11:25:44  <johill> let me create some examples
2007-11-10T11:25:52  <johill> got a test wiki still or ?
2007-11-10T11:26:09  <ThomasWaldmann> test.wikiwikiweb.de
2007-11-10T11:26:23  <ThomasWaldmann> (1.6)
2007-11-10T11:30:33  <johill> http://test.wikiwikiweb.de/ListExamples
2007-11-10T11:30:51  <johill> it collapses it all into one paragraph
2007-11-10T11:31:04  <johill> but there's an empty line, the presence of which doesn't make adifference
2007-11-10T11:39:25  <ThomasWaldmann> johill: well, it does not work for ol (it kind of "visually works" for ul)
2007-11-10T11:41:33  <johill> with ., yeah
2007-11-10T11:41:37  <ThomasWaldmann> so i suggest you make a good plan on the wiki how that could be fixed (with markup -> html samples)
2007-11-10T11:41:40  <johill> but why doesn't the empty line just start a new paragraph?
2007-11-10T11:41:52  <johill> within the <ol>
2007-11-10T11:43:01  <ThomasWaldmann> i am not sure, that was year(s) ago when i last changed that code
2007-11-10T11:43:10  <johill> hm ok
2007-11-10T11:43:26  <johill> anyway, I found a workaround ;)
2007-11-10T11:43:28  <johill> good enough
2007-11-10T11:45:56  <ThomasWaldmann> the problem back then was that just indenting to same level didnt work for what was wanted
2007-11-10T11:46:37  <ThomasWaldmann> thus i came up with that . stuff, that at least partly fixed the problem
2007-11-10T11:48:43  <johill> I'd think that if you indent to the same level but have an empty line we could just as well create a para
2007-11-10T11:48:50  <johill> rightg now if you indent to the same level it just flows the text
2007-11-10T11:48:56  <johill> but you can achieve that w/o an empty line
2007-11-10T11:50:35  <ThomasWaldmann> it should be consistent with what happens outside a list (at zero indention)
2007-11-10T11:51:27  <johill> then you do get a paragraph for an empty line
2007-11-10T11:52:17  <ThomasWaldmann> but an "indented empty line" is something we want to avoid. that would be significant trailing whitespace.
2007-11-10T12:23:03  <johill> not indented
2007-11-10T12:23:06  <johill> just a blank line
2007-11-10T12:23:20  <johill> right now in th example I only have blank lines there and it still doesn't start a new paragraph
2007-11-10T12:24:33  <ThomasWaldmann> http://moinmo.in/MoinMoinTodo/Release%201.6.0 if someone wants to help, there are still some issues open (and if noone using wsgi fixes it, don't expect it to get fixed by someone not using wsgi)
2007-11-10T12:26:01  <ThomasWaldmann> xorAxAx: johill: if the stuff under Done?: is done, please remove it.
2007-11-10T12:27:09  <xorAxAx> umm, there are checkmarks, why shouldnt it be done *edit*
2007-11-10T12:28:50  <johill> huh
2007-11-10T12:28:57  <johill> I removed it and then somebody added it back with a ../
2007-11-10T12:28:59  <johill> ./
2007-11-10T12:29:19  <xorAxAx> i just removed the last two items
2007-11-10T12:29:27  <xorAxAx> so merging is broken?
2007-11-10T12:29:39  <johill> merging?
2007-11-10T12:29:59  <xorAxAx> moin merges your edit if you are editing while somebody else does
2007-11-10T12:30:05  <johill> that cokie thing is fixed anyway
2007-11-10T12:30:49  <johill> do we want it listed with (./) or not listed?
2007-11-10T12:31:26  <ThomasWaldmann> the lost edits were due to the 2nd conversion attempt needed for moinmo.in
2007-11-10T12:31:34  <johill> yes
2007-11-10T12:37:53  <ThomasWaldmann> there is still some untagged ParameterParser / id generation stuff on the 1.7 backports page
2007-11-10T12:50:27  * johill checks
2007-11-10T12:51:51  <johill> wait
2007-11-10T12:51:55  <johill> parameter parser is your code ;)
2007-11-10T12:52:15  <johill> id generate
2007-11-10T12:52:17  <johill> yeah
2007-11-10T12:52:19  <johill> hmm do we want that?
2007-11-10T12:52:31  <johill> xorAxAx: what do you think? it did fix the include ID bug
2007-11-10T12:52:37  <johill> and line IDs bug too
2007-11-10T12:52:40  <ThomasWaldmann> just to remind: we are searching for critical fixes to backport, not for large potentially release-breaking stuff
2007-11-10T12:53:20  <johill> yeah how critical is invalid HTML? :)
2007-11-10T12:53:51  <xorAxAx> i am not sure
2007-11-10T12:54:07  <johill> it's a lot of code
2007-11-10T12:54:11  <johill> I'd prefer not to
2007-11-10T12:54:19  <johill> but we do generate invalid HTML otherwise
2007-11-10T12:54:50  <ThomasWaldmann> btw, what we can try is to make 1.6 shorter-living than 1.5 (and 1.3) was
2007-11-10T12:54:59  <johill> I sure hope so :)
2007-11-10T12:55:40  <johill> can we just delete non-candidates?
2007-11-10T12:55:50  <ThomasWaldmann> N
2007-11-10T12:55:52  <johill> or does anybody want to review
2007-11-10T12:55:54  <johill> yeah I know
2007-11-10T12:55:56  <johill> but the page is so huge
2007-11-10T12:56:25  <ThomasWaldmann> trl-F is nice to use as soon as stuff is tagged
2007-11-10T12:56:32  <ThomasWaldmann> C..
2007-11-10T12:57:12  <ThomasWaldmann> and we maybe don't want to do that again, so please keep N stuff
2007-11-10T12:57:20  <johill> sure
2007-11-10T12:58:29  <ThomasWaldmann> btw, making 1.6 short lived means moving critical development to 1.8 soon and working on stabilizing what is already in 1.7
2007-11-10T12:58:49  <johill> well', I'll leave the decision whether to port ID generate to you. I think it works fine (after all I run 1.7) but it is quite a bit of code
2007-11-10T12:58:53  <johill> and quite invasive changes too
2007-11-10T12:59:25  <ThomasWaldmann> then I would go for having it in 1.7 and having 1.7 soon
2007-11-10T12:59:47  <johill> it is in 1.7 obviously
2007-11-10T13:00:25  <ThomasWaldmann> having 1.7 soon also means that it won't get new storage code
2007-11-10T13:01:07  <johill> then the only new features in 1.7 would be auth and macro framework?
2007-11-10T13:01:11  <johill> basically
2007-11-10T13:04:05  <johill> why do you want to backport the password checker?
2007-11-10T13:04:11  <johill> that seems like a new feature rather than a fix
2007-11-10T13:11:26  <ThomasWaldmann> johill: it's just a candidate, I am not sure yet. I basically was a customer wish (for avoiding too weak user passwords on a closed site).
2007-11-10T13:11:53  <ThomasWaldmann> it is not intrusive, just one or two calls from main code to something that lives in the config
2007-11-10T13:12:13  <ThomasWaldmann> but maybe that must wait for 1.7, too
2007-11-10T13:14:11  <ThomasWaldmann> (looking at that password statistics printout from some hacked dating site, having 123456 at top place, followed by 12345 and 1234 not too far below, I guess it might be a good thing for 1.6, though)
2007-11-10T13:15:37  <johill> hehe
2007-11-10T13:17:12  * ThomasWaldmann gtg. bbl.
2007-11-10T17:20:38  <ThomasWaldmann> moin
2007-11-10T20:43:24  *** irc.freenode.net sets mode: +o ChanServ
2007-11-10T21:10:27  <dreimark> may be we should think on edit-log entry SAVE for deleted pages to  rename it  to SAVE/DELETE similiar to the SAVE/RENAME in 1.7
2007-11-10T21:24:12  <ThomasWaldmann> moin currently does not rely on that, but does check for existance by calling .exists() anyway
2007-11-10T21:24:40  <ThomasWaldmann> so even if you delete a page in the filesystem, it will show up as deleted (if there is some log entry referring to it)
2007-11-10T21:27:43  <dreimark> I know, its only if you like to set a filter for deleted pages you have SAVE to use, which would be better named SAVE/DELETE as we do for SAVE/RENAME
2007-11-10T21:38:22  * ThomasWaldmann backported password checker
2007-11-10T21:50:38  <CIA-32> moin: Thomas Waldmann <tw AT waldmann-edv DOT de> default * 2330:a3b890aaf25f 1.6/ (4 files in 4 dirs): password_checker (simple builtin test, optionally using python-crack lib, backported from 1.7)
2007-11-10T22:06:15  * ThomasWaldmann fixes some tests
2007-11-10T22:26:32  <ThomasWaldmann> cia wake up :)
2007-11-10T22:28:56  <dreimark> user.unsubscribe(pagename) in 1.6 gives always True
2007-11-10T22:29:20  <dreimark> I think thats not a big problem
2007-11-10T22:29:40  *** irc.freenode.net sets mode: +o ChanServ
2007-11-10T22:41:02  *** irc.freenode.net sets mode: +o ChanServ
2007-11-10T22:48:05  *** irc.freenode.net sets mode: +o ChanServ
2007-11-10T23:03:38  *** irc.freenode.net sets mode: +o ChanServ