Fallback to showing first published date

[dato]

First publication date is only shown when the editor is not known
(rationale: if the editor for the first edition is known, the same
date should be set in both fields?).

[mouse-reeve]

This is good, but I think there's a better way to handle this that's a slightly more complicated change. We can use {% with %} to set a variable to firstof the two available date options, and then proceed with all the boolean logic using one variable, which will be a heck of a lot simpler. Does that make sense?

[dato]

Sure, done that in 2c968e9.

I initially didn't want to allow combining publisher with first_published_version, but this version allows it. If we want to disallow it, it's an easy extra fix (ec2c5cb). Let me know what you prefer.

[mouse-reeve]

Ah I didn't even think of that but it would look extremely weird to say a book was released by a publisher before the publisher existed. I think your additional change is a good solution

[dato]

Done.

As a plus, that part of the template didn't grow, but even shrank by (net) three lines:

❯ g diff --stat @^^
 bookwyrm/templates/book/publisher_info.html | 15 ++++++---------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Thanks!