diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn | 18 |
1 files changed, 18 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn b/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn index b10691cff..3268f9983 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn @@ -7,3 +7,21 @@ The "date" attribute is being set to the date output by gig for a commit. (I'd h The presentation of the resulting comments is not sorted by this date, which I would hope/expect, but instead by the ctime or mtime of the file at the other end, as best I can tell. -- [[Jon]] + +> Yes, comments are displayed via an inline, and usual [[pagespec/sorting]] +> (eg, default of when the file was first seen) is used. The comment +> date only affects the date displayed. +> +> The only time I've seen this be much problem personally is when moving +> a page, which means moving its comments directory, which tends to +> jumble the order. (And --gettime does not help, as ikiwiki does not +> tell git to follow renames for speed reasons.) +> +> I wonder if it wouldn't be best to just get rid of the extra date +> inside the comment, and rely on the file date as is done for other pages. +> Thoughts [[smcv]]? +> +> Altenatively, since comments tend to be named "comment_N_.....", +> adding a new [[pagespec/sorting]] method that sorts by filename, +> rather than by title, and using it by default for comments might be +> better than the current situation. --[[Joey]] |