Bryan Stearns wrote:
I'd like to suggest that this change be backed out, and that John (or someone else) find a way to show how to add a new content item type and a detail view for it without creating a new structural mechanism to do so.+1 on both of bryan's issues: 1) Documentation: We should not introduce, let alone write sample code that leads a user down a path that is different from where they will end up. By introducing a new detail view mechanism, the reader will be confused down the line when they try to understand how the first pattern they learned fits together with a newer, incompatible pattern. Personally I also object to the specific mechanism that john is using here, and would have voiced my objection had I known what was being proposed. 2) When someone objects to a change, especially when they have specifically voiced the objection ahead of time, the change should not be checked in until a resolution has been met through some form of discussion with additional people. This is just how a review process works... Alec |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
