search

DjangoAdminHackers / django-linkcheck

An app that will analyze and report on links in any model that you register with it. Links can be bare (urls or image and file fields) or embedded in HTML (linkcheck handles the parsing). It's fairly easy to override methods of the Linkcheck object should you need to do anything more complicated (like generate URLs from slug fields etc).
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
75 stars 26 forks source link

Enable internationalization for URL status messages #135

Closed timobrembeck closed 1 year ago

timobrembeck commented 1 year ago

Fixes #125

claudep commented 1 year ago

I (or someone) will need some time to review this. What about releasing now a version 2 of django-linkcheck, with this new model structure aimed at a version 3 later on?

timobrembeck commented 1 year ago

I (or someone) will need some time to review this. What about releasing now a version 2 of django-linkcheck, with this new model structure aimed at a version 3 later on?

Sure, we would really benefit from a timely release of the recent bug fixes, and the refactored model can also be a long-term improvement.

If you have a good idea how to split up the PR into several smaller ones, I would give it a try, but I have the feeling that the changes depend on each other.

timobrembeck commented 1 year ago

I (or someone) will need some time to review this.

@claudep Do you know who else I could ping to take a look at this? Or do you think this PR is too extensive to ever be merged, and that I'd be better off working on a standalone fork if I want to make such substantial changes?

timobrembeck commented 1 year ago

Do you know who else I could ping to take a look at this? Or do you think this PR is too extensive to ever be merged, and that I'd be better off working on a standalone fork if I want to make such substantial changes?

@claudep Do you have any thoughts on this? Should I just be more patient, or close the PR eventually? Unfortunately, the remaining changes are all connected fo each other, so I don't see a way to further reduce the diff :unamused:

claudep commented 1 year ago

What do you think about releasing 2.1 now? Then I can try to find some time in coming weeks to review your patch to target a 3.0 release later.

timobrembeck commented 1 year ago

Alright, thank you so much :pray:

claudep commented 1 year ago

2.1 is released. I had an idea to move forward with as little disruption as possible. What about a first step where we add the new status fields to the model and fill them in check methods, but without changing anything else. Then we could release that in a minor version (e.g. 2.2), as this wouldn't change any existing layout/behavior, When we later release a more-breaking 3.0 version, the fields would be most probably already filled and that wouldn't require a complete re-scanning of all links.

timobrembeck commented 1 year ago

@claudep Do you think you could take another look at this? There have been quite a few improvements on the current master branch, and I think after merging at least this PR, it would make sense to release a new version. We'd really benefit from this.

Apart from that: Do you think it would make sense to move this repo to the @jazzband organization (provided the original authors agree) to attract more maintainers for this project and to reduce the bus factor?

claudep commented 1 year ago

Do you think it would make sense to move this repo to the https://github.com/jazzband organization (provided the original authors agree) to attract more maintainers for this project and to reduce the bus factor?

We would at least require @andybak agreement. Now about attracting more maintainers, I must say that my recent experiences with jazzband was not so much enthusiastic. Finding long-term maintainers is still hard, but I guess this is a general issue in free software packages. Many act like free software was auto-maintained by a dwarf team of Middle-earth!

timobrembeck commented 1 year ago

We would at least require @andybak agreement. Now about attracting more maintainers, I must say that my recent experiences with jazzband was not so much enthusiastic. Finding long-term maintainers is still hard, but I guess this is a general issue in free software packages. Many act like free software was auto-maintained by a dwarf team of Middle-earth!

Ok, yeah it was just an idea, I agree that it probably won't magically create a huge community around this package. Also, I don't think there is an immediate action required, you're doing a great job at maintaining this repo and I really appreciate your reviews!

I have a few more ideas on improving this project, but at some point I hope it will reach a stable state in which we're satisfied with the functionality and don't need much time to maintain it.

claudep commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the nice improvements you already brought to this package!