13,212
edits
User talk:Red Leader: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Oops moved too soon, my fault. For a general template I would suggest "repo link"
mNo edit summary |
(Oops moved too soon, my fault. For a general template I would suggest "repo link") |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
: Technically, the "right" thing would be introducing something like <nowiki>{{SCMLink|mode=git|host=gitorious|project=fg/fgdata|branch=master}}</nowiki> instead, which could handle different implementation (git/svn, mercurial etc)-we could also name it "RepoLink" to make it more obvious to people less familiar with SCMs. | : Technically, the "right" thing would be introducing something like <nowiki>{{SCMLink|mode=git|host=gitorious|project=fg/fgdata|branch=master}}</nowiki> instead, which could handle different implementation (git/svn, mercurial etc)-we could also name it "RepoLink" to make it more obvious to people less familiar with SCMs. | ||
:: I moved a bit soon above. I was [[User:Johan G/Template:SVN link|nearly done]] when you made your first save. Has to happen sometimes, I guess... | |||
:: Generalizing would be a good idea I think, but do consider backward compatibility. I would suggest {{tl|repo link}} for a name (short, no caps and easy to grasp its purpose from the name). Maybe a generalized template could be made and the older templates could be altered to the generalized template instead? | |||
:: Also consider the amount of typing. If it is too much more easy to navigate to a page, copy the URL and edit the link label it might be too much typing and the template and hence a common format will not be used. At the other hand there could be copyable examples for each repo in the template documentation. | |||
::—[[User:Johan G|Johan G]] ([[User_talk:Johan_G|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Johan_G|contribs]]) 17:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC) | |||