Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue reference backlinks are missing #4302

Closed
stevegt opened this issue Jun 23, 2018 · 6 comments · Fixed by #8137
Closed

Issue reference backlinks are missing #4302

stevegt opened this issue Jun 23, 2018 · 6 comments · Fixed by #8137
Labels
issue/confirmed Issue has been reviewed and confirmed to be present or accepted to be implemented type/feature Completely new functionality. Can only be merged if feature freeze is not active.
Milestone

Comments

@stevegt
Copy link
Contributor

stevegt commented Jun 23, 2018

As of 85414d8 we're missing the "{user} referenced this issue {date}" backlinks that github creates when another issue references the current one. I'll link this issue to #3134 and vice versa so both show an example of what these should look like -- see below.

These links are pretty important; they turn github issues from disjoint threads into an interlinked, multi-threaded mesh. They help to prevent and converge duplicates, and probably have a role in community-building.

In my own case, as soon as we had created more than a few issues and users in our local Gitea install, I immediately started wanting these backlinks. This is the sort of problem that #1029 exposes.

I'm trying to figure out the right way to tackle this; do we somehow detect and create the backlinks on the fly as we render the HTML? Or do we use a backlinks table that gets populated as the references are created? If the latter, we would want to scan through existing comments at migration to create the initial table content when upgrading from older versions, right?

@lunny lunny added the type/feature Completely new functionality. Can only be merged if feature freeze is not active. label Jun 24, 2018
@cryptix
Copy link
Contributor

cryptix commented Jul 26, 2018

As of ... we're missing ..

I wonder why this is marked as a feature? The above sounds much more like a regression.

@lafriks
Copy link
Member

lafriks commented Jul 26, 2018

@cryptix Gitea has never supported such feature so that can not be regression

@cryptix
Copy link
Contributor

cryptix commented Jul 26, 2018

Thanks for the clearification.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 16, 2019

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs during the next 2 weeks. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the issue/stale label Jan 16, 2019
@cryptix
Copy link
Contributor

cryptix commented Jan 16, 2019

sorry for the meta-noise but should feature tracking issues really be considered stale?

I for one would really like to try gitea once these things are in.

@stale stale bot removed the issue/stale label Jan 16, 2019
@lunny lunny added the issue/confirmed Issue has been reviewed and confirmed to be present or accepted to be implemented label Feb 7, 2019
@mxmehl
Copy link

mxmehl commented Jun 5, 2019

Do I see correctly that this issue would be solved with #3695 being merged?

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
issue/confirmed Issue has been reviewed and confirmed to be present or accepted to be implemented type/feature Completely new functionality. Can only be merged if feature freeze is not active.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants