It doesn't need much indexing, it's mostly accessed by primary key anyway...
Re: Thought system
« Reply #60, on November 9th, 2011, 09:50 PM »
1. | Big fucking query. |
- I haven't been using preparsecode, as I said before. It's something I'll have to deal with, too.
- Sidebar box doesn't show a parsed thought because the Ajax stuff doesn't return anything. It was done this way on noisen, never cared to develop further... Obviously, I *should* return a parsed string to show. And I will.
- BTW, if you add a URL between nb tags, it won't be parsed into a url tag. Just a limitation I noticed yesterday in here... Dunno if it's in Wedge too, but I suppose so.
I'm kind of on a break right now because, well... I thought I was done but I started logging a lot of items I should do, and I figured, oh crap this is going to take me another week... So right now, it's all you get
- Color stuff: ah, yes, thanks for the tip...
Update: not getting any problems with Packer...?
1. | As much as developing on Wedge is awesome, for a project that is a one-off codebase, I'd rather build it once and leave it without having to do regular patching and updates, if that makes sense. |
Which is (probably) why we need to enable this only for items in an 'attachments' album, i.e. if the user chooses to post in another album, the item will use the album's permissions, while if they post in the general attachment album, it'll use the post's permissions and a reprint won't be allowed in another post.
That wasn't really my intention, because it's not really want I would want to use. I'd personally prefer that it uses the permissions but that reposting should be permitted, so that if I attach a file to a post, that isn't in a regular album, I would want to be able to repost it elsewhere - for example, the logo madness thread here.
If it's tied to visibility behind the scenes so that users don't have to worry about it, they can just repost the image without any concern, e.g. through whatever equivalent of the smg tag we end up with.
That seems to be in line with what I suggested..? What exactly is there to clear up between our visions of the thing?
Also, regarding rev 1165... I must admit I haven't followed any developments regarding this bug. I had a quick look this morning, and apparently it's a subject that's been discussed at the AeMe topic at sm.org these last few days, with a weird fix posted, and I'm not even sure what your fix does, whatever, over at sm.org it seems the problems are with Firefox 8 and here they're with IE9...?!