Filing bugs on external Discourse dependencies

Continuing the discussion from Ordered list numbering wrong:

The linked topic was a bug report (of an issue that causes a lot of grief to users). One developer said that the bug was going to be fixed in the future (timeframe left vague). It’s my understanding that the “Bug” category here is the canonical issue tracking system for Discourse, but now an known bug that’s planned to be fixed has had the topic that could be used to track it closed, meaning that it looks like something that isn’t an open bug any more.

Is there a better way to report this? What’s the thinking on tracking issues like this slated for future releases? It seems like there should be a way to do that. Things I’ve used in other places are tags with specific versions / milestones, but I don’t see that anything of the sort has been done here (or that there’s a reliable way to do it, in any case).


Feel free to discuss the timeline for a Standard Markdown release on – the issue is that a “bug” was opened for an external library, not our code.

Another place you could open it is

Ah, I had no idea. It’s all just “Discourse” to me. That makes sense.

1 Like

I’ve reported this to the markdown-js bug tracker:

It would have been nice to be told that it was an issue in a dependency instead of just having the thread closed arbitrarily.


You should note that markdown-js is also not stmd compliant, as the spec was just released yesterday.

You might not like the behaviour but it’s how Gruber’s markdown works and 95% of parsers do too. It should be changed in the future but don’t be surprised if parsers don’t want to adopt it ahead of the other changes too.

Yes, I understand the timeline on the spec. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone would consider this anything but a bug to begin with, but the spec gives it something to hang its hat on. It seems like being a bit lazy with the html generation to me (something I’ve never done, I’m sure).

1 Like

That would be why I put something into their bug-tracker. It ought to be marked “feature” and scheduled for a milestone, but they’re not using milestones either. If nobody reports it, they can’t possibly adhere, so I reported it.

A report is not a complaint, per se. I even put a smiley face just to make it super clear I wasn’t angry or anything.

The part you don’t see, by the by, is me browsing the code to see how much trouble it’d be to start tweaking the gruber dialect to conform more to the standard so I can issue a pull request. It looks interesting.