Fixed, rev 880871.
-Adrian
Bruno Busco wrote:
Hi Adrian,
yes I did notice this at a later stage but then I changed my mind and
used a CSS-only solution committed in rev. 880762.
Dropping crumbs theme works quite well with this but I did not manage
to have a better rendering when the tab-bar comes to have two lines
due to wrapping like this:
https://localhost:8443/webtools/control/xmldsdump
or when there is a left column like this:
https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/ListShipmentMethodTypes
Any help to fix this is greatly appreciated! ;-)
-Bruno
2009/11/16 Adrian Crum <[email protected]>:
Bruno,
Did you notice that the GlobalDecorator already has a pre-body section?
-Adrian
Bruno Busco wrote:
Adam,
I will definitively put back the "new feature" in a different way that
does not hurt.
The "new feature" basically is the application tab bar at an higher
level in the HTML so that it is rendered in the Dropping crumbs theme
(I think I should find a better name for this theme) just below the
breadcrumb.
It will take some time and probably some discussion because I will ask
details.
I look forward to the community collabotation.
-Bruno
2009/11/16 Adam Heath <[email protected]>:
Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
Adrian Crum wrote:
Developers,
Please be careful when changing HTML element compounds. The recent
changes to certain themes are breaking the layout of the Flat Grey
theme - which shouldn't have been affected.
Um, huh? So, because *new* things were done, possibly adding more
features, but it broke something else, you want to stop the new
feature? Why not just fix the thing that broke?
I'm a little confused now, because in OFBiz Committers Roles and
Responsibilities is written this:
*Rule #1 for a committer is the same as for a doctor:* *first do no
harm*. Nothing should be committed that breaks existing functionality
without replacing it either before or in the same commit.
Sure. But we are all human, and we are not perfect.
Mistakes happen, in both directions. If someone breaks existing
functionality, then either back out their change, or fix the existing
code to make it work.
In this case, I think that maybe just backing out the changes was the
wrong approach to take. Unless they will come back at some point,
with whatever problems fixed that they caused.
ps: I haven't actually looked at the changes in question.
Bilgin
