Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Arantor
1876
Features / Re: Template edits
« on January 18th, 2013, 07:25 PM »
Well... here's the thing, if it were done with a class, you could use ".root.starter .mime a" as a selector for the name and add something with the before pseudo thingamajig.
If there were some ability to set up the post template as a skeleton it would be even easier to do with conventional layer injection.
Oh and yes, there is the facility to inject into prepareDisplayContext already.
If there were some ability to set up the post template as a skeleton it would be even easier to do with conventional layer injection.
Posted: January 18th, 2013, 07:25 PM
Oh and yes, there is the facility to inject into prepareDisplayContext already.
1877
Features / Re: Template edits
« on January 18th, 2013, 07:09 PM »
You can request it :P
On a more serious note, what did you have in mind? I've thought about adding CSS classes to the post container for things like topic starter, whether the person is an admin and so on.
I'm open to suggestions for other layout issues (and to me, this does seem more like a plugin candidate than a core feature)
On a more serious note, what did you have in mind? I've thought about adding CSS classes to the post container for things like topic starter, whether the person is an admin and so on.
I'm open to suggestions for other layout issues (and to me, this does seem more like a plugin candidate than a core feature)
1878
Features / Re: Template edits
« on January 18th, 2013, 07:05 PM »
And there's the rub: free template editing is very liberating but it's also very fragile - and this applies to even systems like XenForo that have a templating system with its own meta markup.
I'd rather just flat out deny that and figure out reasonable compromises in the meantime.
I'd rather just flat out deny that and figure out reasonable compromises in the meantime.
1879
Features / Re: Template edits
« on January 18th, 2013, 07:00 PM »
<we:cat> is down to the skin itself, as is <we:title> and <we:title2>. The skin defines what they are meaning that the skin can provide whatever markup it likes for them.
It would be possible to add more, sure - but what? Replacing the we:cat/title/title2 were the big ones.
As far as other templates it really depends on what - the main structure of plugins has been to allow plugins to add new subtemplates - they can replace entire subtemplates in the skeleton too.
Everything else we'll take on a case by case basis.
It would be possible to add more, sure - but what? Replacing the we:cat/title/title2 were the big ones.
As far as other templates it really depends on what - the main structure of plugins has been to allow plugins to add new subtemplates - they can replace entire subtemplates in the skeleton too.
Everything else we'll take on a case by case basis.
1880
Features / Re: Template edits
« on January 18th, 2013, 06:40 PM »
Well, it's complicated to do nicely.
Essentially running a subtemplate several times is the way to go, provided that the sub template can be run with injecting $message into it in some fashion.
Remember, the template itself (yes, ugly I know) gets the $message and all the information for it from prepareDisplayContext. This would also solve a bunch of other stuff if we can do it, because it would allow easy extension of the poster info in a nice way, or replacing likes with something else in a post.
Essentially running a subtemplate several times is the way to go, provided that the sub template can be run with injecting $message into it in some fashion.
Remember, the template itself (yes, ugly I know) gets the $message and all the information for it from prepareDisplayContext. This would also solve a bunch of other stuff if we can do it, because it would allow easy extension of the poster info in a nice way, or replacing likes with something else in a post.
1881
Archived fixes / Re: Reply Error with Chrome
« on January 18th, 2013, 05:52 PM »
I don't know all the mechanics but I can see all sorts of issues with doing it like that.
1882
Archived fixes / Re: Reply Error with Chrome
« on January 18th, 2013, 05:42 PM »
No, ours receives HTML from the browser and converts it manually to bbc at post save time. SCEditor sends it as bbc to the server.
Need to dig in to actually find you reasons though :/
Need to dig in to actually find you reasons though :/
1883
Features / Re: Template edits
« on January 18th, 2013, 05:33 PM »
Per post templating is one of the things we've not touched for the obvious reason of keeping it lean and not sure how to do it without it being a total mess.
1884
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 18th, 2013, 07:22 AM »
I should let this go, but I can't.
You see the problem as having no developers. You appear to be ignoring all the reasons given for why you have no developers and why no-one wants to join up. This is your real problem.
As for half assed plans, I shouldn't talk about it publicly, especially as you don't seem to be aware of it. It is not spproved but under discussion, suggested by a non-dev who has no idea how to appeal to the right kind of dev.
And there we go with the straw man again. I am telling my story, and other devs are telling theirs. Seems to me that there's a lot more coherence in what we're all saying...
But if we all have it so wrong, prove us wrong and get your house in order.
You see the problem as having no developers. You appear to be ignoring all the reasons given for why you have no developers and why no-one wants to join up. This is your real problem.
As for half assed plans, I shouldn't talk about it publicly, especially as you don't seem to be aware of it. It is not spproved but under discussion, suggested by a non-dev who has no idea how to appeal to the right kind of dev.
And there we go with the straw man again. I am telling my story, and other devs are telling theirs. Seems to me that there's a lot more coherence in what we're all saying...
But if we all have it so wrong, prove us wrong and get your house in order.
1885
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 18th, 2013, 06:50 AM »
Aside from the half assed plan to recruit devs that is in the works,[1] the facts haven't changed regardless of miscommunication: SMF is up shit creek without any developers to paddle it back down and no-one with the skills is going to go near it with this stuff going on. The depth I'm getting at is how hard people are going to ignore the truth.
Even if you're right, and this is just a complete fuck up of communication, no dev will trust a team that can't communicate. If only it were a simple case of miscommunication, though.
I cannot believe how much time is being wasted by all in this thread trying various methods to explain to you why things are so broken and why it can't be fixed without changes SMF would not be willing to make.
I have said my piece, done here. Want to carry on arguing, fine. But I lost enough time when I could have been improving Wedge, all for something that can't happen.
Good luck with 2.0.4, and 2.1. A fitting end they will make.
Even if you're right, and this is just a complete fuck up of communication, no dev will trust a team that can't communicate. If only it were a simple case of miscommunication, though.
I cannot believe how much time is being wasted by all in this thread trying various methods to explain to you why things are so broken and why it can't be fixed without changes SMF would not be willing to make.
Posted: January 18th, 2013, 06:46 AM
I have said my piece, done here. Want to carry on arguing, fine. But I lost enough time when I could have been improving Wedge, all for something that can't happen.
Good luck with 2.0.4, and 2.1. A fitting end they will make.
| 1. | Which is a backfire waiting to happen. |
1886
The Pub / Re: Looking for volunteers to test the Wedge private alpha!
« on January 18th, 2013, 06:13 AM »
I would also remind everyone of what I said in http://wedge.org/pub/7623/looking-for-volunteers-to-test-the-wedge-private-alpha/msg284142/#msg284142
Ignore any $2 mentions for now, that's a known bug.
Ignore any $2 mentions for now, that's a known bug.
1887
Features / Re: New revs
« on January 18th, 2013, 05:54 AM »
(4 files, 2KB)
Revision: 1853
Author: arantor
Date: 18 January 2013 04:53:28
Message:
! A few more language tidy-ups to use number_context. Nothing major, just a little bit of housekeeping while the subject came up. Still more to do though. (PersonalMessage.php, ManageMaintenance.template.php, ManageMaintenance and PersonalMessage language files)
----
Modified : /trunk/Sources/PersonalMessage.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/ManageMaintenance.template.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/ManageMaintenance.english.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/PersonalMessage.english.php
Revision: 1853
Author: arantor
Date: 18 January 2013 04:53:28
Message:
! A few more language tidy-ups to use number_context. Nothing major, just a little bit of housekeeping while the subject came up. Still more to do though. (PersonalMessage.php, ManageMaintenance.template.php, ManageMaintenance and PersonalMessage language files)
----
Modified : /trunk/Sources/PersonalMessage.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/ManageMaintenance.template.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/ManageMaintenance.english.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/PersonalMessage.english.php
1888
Plugins / Re: Subaccounts
« on January 18th, 2013, 05:45 AM »
The small fee is less about profiteering and more about keeping out the malcontents, as has been discussed more than once here.
The problem with making everything free is that it's got to come from somewhere, and it's got to be supported - and I do not want to spend vast amounts of my time doing support when I want to be writing things. Thus, putting a small fee on some plugins (the most intractable and complex, and typically niche) ones means that I don't have to answer a bajillion support requests, especially from people who seem to be under the delusion that I owe them something because they're using something I made for them - something surprisingly common out of my SMF mod history.
The problem with making everything free is that it's got to come from somewhere, and it's got to be supported - and I do not want to spend vast amounts of my time doing support when I want to be writing things. Thus, putting a small fee on some plugins (the most intractable and complex, and typically niche) ones means that I don't have to answer a bajillion support requests, especially from people who seem to be under the delusion that I owe them something because they're using something I made for them - something surprisingly common out of my SMF mod history.
1889
Features / Re: Ordering sticky topics
« on January 18th, 2013, 05:25 AM »
That was my thinking so far, though I did leave myself a note in case needs to become a permission later.
1890
Features: Forward thinking / Re: jQuery support
« on January 18th, 2013, 05:20 AM »
Yup. That's always going to be the case in terms of its size because it has to be self contained, as a result jQuery etc. must be local - and must provide all relevant versions of things.
I haven't compared the install size of SMF and Wedge lately but I suspect it would not be entirely favourable, even if I were to even the playing field by neatening up the languages folder, though that's really a side note in the grand scheme of things - and there are things we can cut if we really need to, though I'd rather have functionality than keeping it small. Just as long as we don't get into the territory that MediaWiki is in; the base installation package is now 68MB of uncompressed files.
I haven't compared the install size of SMF and Wedge lately but I suspect it would not be entirely favourable, even if I were to even the playing field by neatening up the languages folder, though that's really a side note in the grand scheme of things - and there are things we can cut if we really need to, though I'd rather have functionality than keeping it small. Just as long as we don't get into the territory that MediaWiki is in; the base installation package is now 68MB of uncompressed files.