-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
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
fix a few links #214
fix a few links #214
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd rather we figure out the linkifer bug. Or maybe those were disabled because the impl was so crappy, I remember @joshtriplett complaining about it.
src/2025h1/README.md
Outdated
@@ -55,11 +55,13 @@ The flagship goals proposed for this roadmap are as follows: | |||
* convene Rust maintainers to celebrate Rust's tenth birthday at [RustWeek 2025](https://2025.rustweek.org) (co-organized with [RustNL](https://2025.rustweek.org/about/); | |||
* author a first draft for a [Rust vision doc](./rust-vision-doc.md) and gather feedback. | |||
|
|||
[RFC 3716]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3716 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm. There is a linkifier declared:
Lines 18 to 21 in 3ed26fd
[preprocessor.goals.linkifiers] | |
"RFC #([0-9]+)" = "https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/$1" | |
"([a-zA-Z0-9-]+)/([a-zA-Z0-9-]+)#([0-9]+)" = "https://github.com/$1/$2/issues/$3" | |
"#([0-9]+)" = "https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/$1" |
I don't get why it's not working...?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#204 was the bug I was thinking of
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't that only parse RFC #3716
, not RFC 3716
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume it should be RFC #?([0-9]+)
if we want to allow both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't that only parse
RFC #3716
, notRFC 3716
?
it was RFC #3716
in the original text, which causes even more confusion as to why it didn't work
Sure, I will try to find out. |
The linkifier is not disabled locally and seems to work, but these links were using the incorrect micro-syntax: the linkifier doesn't trigger on I've updated the PR to restore and fix the original text. |
Thanks @lqd ! |
The post-processor didn't linkify the RFC link from last time, so here is the PR I promised.
There was also a couple other links to fix in the RFL page.
Rendered