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: Project 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>
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/dev