From 27501f28fa5ee3d126563683c39393bef1451996 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:11:25 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] I think this would be ok to do, but here's something to consider.. --- doc/todo/brokenlinks_should_group_links_to_a_page.mdwn | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/todo/brokenlinks_should_group_links_to_a_page.mdwn b/doc/todo/brokenlinks_should_group_links_to_a_page.mdwn index 8911422a2..3f2c14404 100644 --- a/doc/todo/brokenlinks_should_group_links_to_a_page.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/brokenlinks_should_group_links_to_a_page.mdwn @@ -7,3 +7,13 @@ current behavior, perhaps brokenlinks could have an option to group by link target. --[[JoshTriplett]] + +> The only downside I see to doing that is that currently it create a +> "?Link" that will create the missing page, with a default location that's +> the same as clicking on the "?Link" in the page with the broken link. But +> if multiple pages are listed on one line, there's only one link and so it +> can only be from=somepage. This would probably not be a problem in most +> cases though. It's likely that if a missing page is linked to from 2+ pages, +> that the user both won't take much care which link is clicked on +> to create it, and that both pages really meant to link to the same page +> anyway. --[[Joey]]