-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
Comments
I wonder why this is marked as a feature? The above sounds much more like a regression. |
@cryptix Gitea has never supported such feature so that can not be regression |
Thanks for the clearification. |
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. |
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. |
Do I see correctly that this issue would be solved with #3695 being merged? |
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?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: