Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
Bloke wrote:
A check-for-updates frequency pref? Options like, I dunno, 1 week, 1month, 6 months? With default of a month. (EDIT: given our release cycle frequency, 1 week might be a bit optimistic! Maybe 1, 3, and 6 months?)
Daily, because if the new release contains a security fix, you want people to upgrade immediately instead of waiting a week or a month. Weekly if you fear that people downloading the update all at once will bring the server to its knees ;)
Offline
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
wet wrote:
I’d need another option: No one. I don’t want my clients to mess with this, even if they are highly privileged.
Ok I have an idea. There could be a super-user page where we could have a series of check boxes stating who can see (and implement?) the update. In this way we will not have any requests in the future asking for privileges changes.
The super-user could be that they are one level above publisher: Level 0 maybe?
> Edited to add that a warning should also be included in that page stating that the upgrade might break the site because of possible incompatible plugins used.
Last edited by colak (2012-06-14 08:48:37)
Yiannis
——————————
NeMe | hblack.art | EMAP | A Sea change | Toolkit of Care
I do my best editing after I click on the submit button.
Offline
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
If upgrading was Piwik-easy, that would be incredible.
I do like the idea of only superusers seeing any upgrade notices, too.
Offline
#100 2012-06-17 11:59:16
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
As we a doing a lot of changes in the 4.5 release, would now be a good time to revisit the whole ‘forms’ terminology debate?
I really dislike the term ‘forms’ for code snippets – it makes no sense whatsoever! They should be called ‘partials’ like everyone else has standardised on in recent times. Every time I discuss the forms concept with new users they initially confuse it with HTML forms.
Offline
#101 2012-06-17 14:01:58
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
philwareham wrote:
They should be called ‘partials’ like everyone else has standardised on in recent times.
Hi Phil, can you please tell us what other systems use that term? I would think ‘snippets’ is a better one but if as you say the ‘partials’ has been standardized I would have no problem with that either.
Yiannis
——————————
NeMe | hblack.art | EMAP | A Sea change | Toolkit of Care
I do my best editing after I click on the submit button.
Offline
#102 2012-06-17 16:00:43
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
form, snippets, partials, you can use any term you feel good, for experienced user it s not a problem if that ease understunding for new user go and do it.
the only thing i see is that in the txp doc they must use the new one and add form in bracket for some times.
Offline
#103 2012-06-17 21:26:13
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
philwareham wrote:
I really dislike the term ‘forms’ for code snippets
So do I. Changing it is not just a rename on the admin side. You’d have to change the corresponding tag attributes as well. If you’re willing to do that, I’d go one step further and combine forms and pages into templates (which I think is a more widely used description than partials or snippets), because there’s no real difference between the two.
Offline
#104 2012-06-17 21:32:01
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
ruud wrote:
You’d have to change the corresponding tag attributes as well.
Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about that. Maybe this idea should wait until another time then – there’s already a lot of changes happening in v4.5 so maybe that is a step too far too soon.
Last edited by philwareham (2012-06-17 21:45:03)
Offline
#105 2012-06-17 21:43:50
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
philwareham wrote:
Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about that. Maybe this idea should wait until another time then – there’s already a lot of changes happening in v4.5 so maybe that is a step too far too soon.
Yes, it should.
And oops. Sorry Phil, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it (the links are next to each other and the forms look rather identical). Restored it to it’s original state as soon as I noticed.
Last edited by Gocom (2012-06-17 21:45:02)
Offline
#106 2012-06-18 03:50:38
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
philwareham wrote:
Maybe this idea should wait until another time then
Frankly, I don’t think that this will ever happen in the 4.x branch. We will not break backwards compatibility to just fix a wording nuisance.
Offline
#107 2012-06-18 04:10:32
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
Maybe we can just call them “snippet forms” or “form partials” in the meantime. Then you don’t have to reprogram anything, and you can still help people understand what they are.
It’d be like saying “page template” instead of “page.” Which I do, all the time.
Offline
#108 2012-06-18 13:00:33
Re: r3798, r3809, r3817: Don't Panic
r3718 r3817 moves the [view] and [download] links back into ID column (but inline now), as part of the ‘show details’ toggle functionality.
Stef has also put ‘show details’ toggles on files list page and images list page too. We decided on hiding tags and date columns for images list, and description and tags columns for the files list (not sure if title should also be hidden on files page too?)
Last edited by Bloke (2012-06-18 13:09:50)
Offline