MoinMoin: MoinMoinChat/Logs/moin-dev/2008-10-30

2008-10-30T00:01:39  <dreimark> oh someone has refactored Include
2008-10-30T00:02:22  * dreimark adds a comment
2008-10-30T12:45:07  <dreimark> moin
2008-10-30T13:04:15  <ThomasWaldmann>  moin
2008-10-30T17:15:31  <gward> hi folks - I'm the sucker that submitted http://moinmo.in/MoinMoinPatch/RefactorIncludeMacro only to learn that someone has already done away with that macro on another branch ;-(
2008-10-30T17:16:05  <gward> question 1) is there any interest in committing my tests for 1.8 or 1.9? or am I wasting my time even on that?
2008-10-30T17:17:23  <gward> question 2) I have done a fair bit of refactoring already (not uploaded to the patch page yet); enough that I think I can confidently add the feature I want (include with revision number). is *that* worth committing to 1.8 or 1.9?
2008-10-30T17:30:13  <dreimark> welcome gward
2008-10-30T17:31:03  <dreimark> it would be fine if the tests are checked in that repo domtree refactoring
2008-10-30T17:31:43  <dreimark> I think if the tests work they will be added there.
2008-10-30T17:33:06  <dreimark> and any other extension/refactoring also in that version there
2008-10-30T17:33:55  <dreimark> 1.8 is in rc phase and we will publish it soon. (only a few days left)
2008-10-30T17:35:17  <dreimark> if the patch you provide will be done for the domtree Include also I don't see a problem to add it to 1.9
2008-10-30T17:36:11  <dreimark> we like to concentrate on the wsgi refactoring in 1.9 and not other big changes to other apis
2008-10-30T17:37:40  <dreimark> 1.9 is planned for end of this year to be released
2008-10-30T17:41:55  <dreimark> ThomasWaldmann: the patch for wikisync does not trigger a new problem as far I can see. But I haven't seen before that encoding bug.
2008-10-30T17:43:24  <dreimark> gward: so 1.9 is the goal for your patches.
2008-10-30T17:43:49  * dreimark has to leave bbl 
2008-10-30T18:59:12  <ThomasWaldmann> hi gward
2008-10-30T19:00:00  <ThomasWaldmann> greg, your stuff neither sucks nor is the time wasted.
2008-10-30T19:01:00  <ThomasWaldmann> we just won't use it forever. but as the changes in the dom repo are rather big and require lots of more work, it could take a while until we can merge/release that.
2008-10-30T19:01:27  <ThomasWaldmann> so in the meantime, careful improvements of the existing code are very welcome.
2008-10-30T19:03:23  <ThomasWaldmann> about 1.8 or 1.9: 1.8 will be the stable release in a few days, so we better commit new code into 1.9. that should work without problem as (afair) there where no changes to Include macro.
2008-10-30T19:04:48  <ThomasWaldmann> 1.9 release is expected at about end december / january
2008-10-30T19:06:31  <ThomasWaldmann> gward: did you fix your .hgrc?
2008-10-30T19:18:29  <gward> TW: thanks! good to know. I will not abandon this patch set
2008-10-30T19:19:19  <gward> I'm working off 1.8 because I want to use these changes with 1.8. have not tried my patches against 1.9 yet, but of course I have no objection to them going into 1.9 rather than 1.8
2008-10-30T19:19:47  <gward> and my .hgrc is fine: my email address really is gerg.ward at gmail.com. not a typo.
2008-10-30T19:21:21  <ThomasWaldmann> oh :)
2008-10-30T19:21:39  <ThomasWaldmann> i somehow expected it must be greg.ward :)
2008-10-30T19:21:50  <gward> nope. that's somebody else. it's a common name.
2008-10-30T19:22:45  <ThomasWaldmann> we maybe can consider the patches for 1.8.1 if we are really sure.
2008-10-30T19:23:40  <gward> it is my intention to make no behaviour changes... hence the 400 lines of test code
2008-10-30T19:23:51  <ThomasWaldmann> about the method of testing: one of the problems of the current parser/formatter approach and is that you can only do tests that way (throwing regexes at html)
2008-10-30T19:24:14  <gward> IMHO you might consider putting the tests into 1.8.1, but hold off the refactoring until 1.9.  you get the benefit of the tests early, but defer the risk of refactoring
2008-10-30T19:24:35  <gward> yeah. throwing regexes at HTML is not terribly elegant. seems to work, though.
2008-10-30T19:24:46  <ThomasWaldmann> that will be also much better with the dom repo changes, because the parser will output a domtree, so tests can operate on the tree
2008-10-30T19:25:11  <gward> cool. that sounds better. hope it doesn't kill performance though!
2008-10-30T19:25:27  <ThomasWaldmann> (or on xml, if you serialize the tree to xml)
2008-10-30T19:26:28  <ThomasWaldmann> no, performance is ok. and we finally can generate valid x(ht)ml with that.
2008-10-30T19:26:41  <gward> spiffy
2008-10-30T19:27:45  <gward> I explored bblank's repo a bit and saw that various macros disappeared to become pseudo-macros ... but I could not find where those are implemented
2008-10-30T19:27:52  <ThomasWaldmann> and include/toc will work on dom tree level
2008-10-30T19:28:12  <gward> cool. how do they work now -- regexes on wiki markup?
2008-10-30T19:28:34  <ThomasWaldmann> yes
2008-10-30T19:28:48  <gward> I can see why you want a DOM
2008-10-30T19:28:52  <ThomasWaldmann> include/toc is rather ugly as it is
2008-10-30T19:29:16  <ThomasWaldmann> and it can't really work, it just does for some of the usual cases
2008-10-30T19:29:47  <gward> that's fairly typical of regex hacks. you can get pretty far if your regexes are wild enough, but you can never do exactly the right thing
2008-10-30T19:30:31  <ThomasWaldmann> <p> and lists are also a constant PITA
2008-10-30T19:31:40  <ThomasWaldmann> the problem with the dom repo merge will be that lots of code needs to get changed, because all old stuff does not work on dom trees
2008-10-30T19:32:29  <ThomasWaldmann> and the rst and docbook stuff we have lacks a maintainer
2008-10-30T19:33:02  <gward> ouch. tricky.
2008-10-30T19:33:16  <gward> you could try the Linux approach... threaten to remove or disable it until someone who cares steps forward ;-)
2008-10-30T19:33:40  <ThomasWaldmann> yeah, I guess we have no other choice anyway
2008-10-30T19:34:28  <ThomasWaldmann> but first, we have to get the wsgi (1.9) and storage (2.0) stuff merged/released
2008-10-30T19:34:55  <ThomasWaldmann> so the dom stuff likely won't happen before summer
2008-10-30T19:35:59  <gward> will my testInclude.py still be useful with the DOM refactoring? I mean, even if Include.py is gone, does <<Include(...)>> still do the same thing?
2008-10-30T19:36:00  <ThomasWaldmann> except we get some more developers actively helping on all that stuff
2008-10-30T19:36:23  <ThomasWaldmann> gward: i think it does
2008-10-30T19:36:48  <gward> good. the refactoring that I'm doing is child's play compared to writing all those tests!
2008-10-30T19:37:22  <ThomasWaldmann> http://hg.moinmo.in/moin/1.8-dom-bblank/file/tip/MoinMoin/converter2/_wiki_macro.py line 40++
2008-10-30T19:39:18  <gward> so... does that mean that <<Include(...)>> gets converted to something else on upgrade to 2.1?
2008-10-30T19:40:00  <ThomasWaldmann> no, it is still same
2008-10-30T19:40:53  <gward> oh!! I see, this is where pseudo-macros live. got it. the package name "converter2" fooled me.
2008-10-30T19:41:54  <ThomasWaldmann> well, all will be some kind of converter2 in future
2008-10-30T19:46:25  <ThomasWaldmann> gtg/bbl
2008-10-30T20:12:34  <ThomasWaldmann> re
2008-10-30T23:48:05  <dreimark> re