On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:58:54AM -0700, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:39:32PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:23:01PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > > I don't understand exactly why it's a corner case. Under the current 
> > > system,
> > > wouldn't /p/snowdrift/ eventually be coded the exact same way as any other
> > > project, so new projects would be prevented from using `snowdrift` as a 
> > > slug
> > > in the same way that they'd be prevented from taking the slug of any other
> > > existing project?
> > 
> > N.B. I'm using the coqdoc convention of putting code in [square braces].
> > 
> > No. As it's implemented now,[SnowdriftProject] is in its own data type, 
> > defined
> > in config/models.
> No it isn't. :)
> There is now no SnowdriftProject type, nor should there ever be.
> Stephen is right; this is not an issue yet. The "/p/snowdrift" route
> will go away, replaced by "/p/#ProjectSlug", and the snowdrift project
> will be the obvious owner of the ProjectSlug that corresponds to the
> route "/p/snowdrift".

Damn, I forgot to ask this in my other email: what are you envisioning as the
type for Project. I'm thinking something like this:

    slug ProjectSlug
    owner UserId
    UniqueProject slug

If that looks agreeable, can I go ahead and implement it? How are you
envisioning always creating a project named Snowdrift? Some sort of migration
hackery? Perhaps something like the old devDB.sql?

Peter Harpending <pe...@harpending.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Dev mailing list

Reply via email to