search

dcpurton / biblatex-sbl

Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) style files for biblatex
24 stars 5 forks source link

Heads up: Major breakage with any type using sblxref #36

Closed dcpurton closed 7 years ago

dcpurton commented 8 years ago

It turns out that the next version of biblatex (3.4) is possibly going to break every type that uses sblxref :(.

I will need to look at redesigning how these work. It will mean making biblatex 3.4 a minimum requirement and a change in the bib database format.

Nhapsie commented 8 years ago

It would be best to keep the master stable at version 3.3. Suggestion: keep dev 1 for 3.3, and create dev 2 for attempts to deal with version 3.4 or play with it. Thanks for the new release of 3.3 today.

dcpurton commented 8 years ago

Yes, I'll make an experimental branch and work off that.

I've merged the current dev branch into master and made a new release (v0.6)

This release works perfectly in biblatex 3.1 and 3.2. There is a biber bug in biblatex 3.3 affecting a less commonly used feature (entries containing both a shorthand and a shortseries). This release also works with biblatex 3.4 up until commit https://github.com/plk/biblatex/commit/1b40caaeae061ae0242315132e6015358c7d3102

It's likely that sblxref will be replaced with xref along with one or more of related, relatedtype, and relatedoptions fields.

At present there is a bug in biblatex that means the skipbib option can not be combined with related entries, so I won't do anything until this is sorted out.

You can track the conversation at https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/407

Nhapsie commented 8 years ago

Timely conversation with @plk, thanks. I think it's proper to enter into dialogue with him because biblatex-sbl is actively maintained. I think there's a place for innovation and improvement, but backward compatibility is also critical. In other words, they should not deprecate elements that quick. I will keep using biblatex 3.2 for now.

plk commented 8 years ago

This should be the last of such issues I hope - we are in the middle of reconstructing the internals for future expansion and will be more careful about breaking changes. It has brought all sorts of peculiar use-cases out of the woodwork, exposed some bugs and forced some decisions. Painful but not entirely unuseful.

dcpurton commented 8 years ago

To be fair to @plk, the way I was doing this was a hack. Hopefully we will end up with the features in biblatex that make what is needed for the SBL style supported without resorting to undocumented and unsupported methods.

plk commented 8 years ago

I intend to look at this today and tomorrow and should have a fix soon. I first have to put in some tests for this and some other similar things to prevent regressions.

Nhapsie commented 8 years ago

@plk, I was not expecting to get a direct response, so thanks and welcome to biblatex-sbl. I agree with you, and wish you well as you and the team further develop the package. By the way, we appreciate you continuing the effort begun by Philipp Lehman. Our biblatex-sbl by dcpurton makes heavy use of the package, so thanks for taking his opinion into consideration.

dcpurton commented 7 years ago

fixed in v0.7