Awesome. Thanks, Alex!
On Feb 6, 11:08 am, Alex Gaynor <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 2:02 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let me also just say, on the topic of Grapelli: I think Grapelli is a > > really great re-skinning of the current admin interface, with a few > > IxD improvements. It's really nicely done, and in my opinion is a > > significant improvement over what we have now. > > > But If I ever were to put together a proposal for the design of the > > admin interface, I would propose not just changing the visual > > aesthetic. I'd propose starting over, from the group-up, and re- > > thinking the entire way the admin interface works and how people > > interact with it. As Luke said, this would entail a great deal of > > backwards-compatibility issues. I have no disillusions about that -- > > it's why I laughed off the suggestion this could land in 1.2 or 1.3. > > If the core developers take is "sorry, we can't do anything that > > complex, ever, because we are too concerned about backwards > > compatibility," then just say so, and I'll stop worrying about Django > > iteself and consider getting a team together to create the admin > > interface I want as a standalone app (although I admit, the thought of > > going to all that work with no chance of it ever being considered for > > core is a depressing one). > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Django developers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. > > We're stepping pretty far into the realm of hypothetical, but as long > as we're here, I'll dive right in: Yes, backwards compatibility is an > issue, but it's impossible to say how hard of an issue it is without > seeing some sort of kernel of a proposal. Further, at some point we > will violently break backwards compatibility, Django 2.0. As you've > said, a new design would be an exceptionally large body of work, > certainly likely to take at least one release cycle, possibly more. > There's also no reason it couldn't live external to Django for a time, > and then be merged into Django for Django 2.0 when we can break that > backwards compatibility. There are, of course ways to mitigate > backwards compatibility issues were this merged into trunk today, but > it's really impossible to say with any accuracy without a vaguely > specific proposal ;). > > Alex > > -- > "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your > right to say it." -- Voltaire > "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero > "Code can always be simpler than you think, but never as simple as you > want" -- Me -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
