urosm
/
ikiwiki
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Thoughts...

master
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~willu/ 2008-08-23 03:26:23 -04:00 committed by Joey Hess
parent b44a63126a
commit 09cf225c71
1 changed files with 37 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

37
doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn
View File

@ -1 +1,38 @@
I like the idea of [[tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki]], and I do so on several wikis. However, as far as I can tell, ikiwiki has no functionality which can represent dependencies between bugs and allow pagespecs to select based on dependencies. For instance, I can't write a pagespec which selects all bugs with no dependencies on bugs not marked as done. --[[JoshTriplett]]
> I started having a think about this. I'm going to start with the idea that expanding
> the pagespec syntax is the way to attack this. It seems that any pagespec that is going
> to represent "all bugs with no dependencies on bugs not marked as done" is going to
> need some way to represent "bugs not marked as done" as a collection of pages, and
> then represent "bugs which do not link to pages in the previous collection".
>
> One way to do this would be to introduce variables into the pagespec, along with
> universal and/or existential [[!wikipedia Quantification]]. That looks quite complex.
>
> Another option would be go with a more functional syntax. The concept here would
> be to allow a pagespec to appear in a 'pagespec function' anywhere a page can. e.g.
> I could pass a pagespec to `link()` and that would return true if there is a link to any
> page matching the pagespec. This makes the variables and existential quantification
> implicit. It would allow the example requested above:
>
>> `bugs/* and !*/Discussion and !link(bugs/* and !*/Discussion and !link(done))`
>
> Unfortunately, this is also going to make the pagespec parsing more complex because
> we now need to parse nested sets of parentheses to know when the nested pagespec
> ends, and that isn't a regular language (we can't use regular expression matching for
> easy parsing).
>
> One simplification of that would be to introduce some pagespec [[shortcuts]]. We could
> then allow pagespec functions to take either pages, or named pagespec shortcuts. The
> pagespec shortcuts would just be listed on a special page, like current [[shortcuts]].
> (It would probably be a good idea to require that shortcuts on that page can only refer
> to named pagespecs higher up that page than themselves. That would stop some
> looping issues...) These shortcuts would be used as follows: when trying to match
> a page (without globs) you look to see if the page exists. If it does then you have a
> match. If it doesn't, then you look to see if a similarly named pagespec shortcut
> exists. If it does, then you check that pagespec recursively to see if you have a match.
> The ordering requirement on named pagespecs stops infinite recursion.
>
> Does that seem like a reasonable first approach?
>
> -- [[Will]]