Moin, > > I proposed an improved patch based on Stefano's one, to upstream > > developers (see upstream's bug report). Upstream considered it quite > > intrusive and assuming that: > > 1. the rendering will be completely refactored in moinmoin 2.0 (the > > next version), which will be based on ElementTree. > > 2. the patch against moin 1.9 to drop python-xml dependency was quite > > intrusive (and it still had a few important bugs). > > Upstream developer isn't interested in such bug. > >
Well, of course we ARE interested in bug fixes and improvements, we should just make sure there is no regression due to it. But, as I personally don't use docbook (and I also don't know of any currently active moin developer who does), I can't help much with regression testing or docbook/xml development. > > There would be three alternatives: 1. drop docbook feature. 2. embed a > > copy of python-xml in moin package. 3. keep using the current > > python-xml which has almost no bugs. 1 -> will automatically happen at moin 2.0 if noone ports docbook stuff from 1.9 to 2.0 (and maintains it in 2.0). 2 -> likely possible, we have quite some stuff in MoinMoin/support/ anyway. 3 -> least work > The bottom line is that currently (and since a while now) docbook > support in moin is unmaintained upstream. Thomas is looking for some > helping hands for maintaining that code. We get requests from docbook users from time to time. But everyone wants just to have and use, but not maintain it. :| > If the issue stay as it is, my favorite scenario would be (1) (drop > docbook support). For 1.9, that would be rather unexpected (and for some moin docbook users quite disruptive). For 2.0, it would be just natural, because the old code wouldn't work without maintenance/rewrite anyway. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
