I've spent about 1-2 hours looking for this specific subject on this forum and in google in general and i'm not getting much results other than this page <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mezzanine-users/grappelli$20alternative$20%7Csort:relevance/mezzanine-users/Z9R4XX7K1B8/MyCW2Gia-EsJ> which pretty much confirms that its just not been done b/c its a lot of work AND *there really isn't much reason too*? is that correct? I really am coming from the same perspective of the poster in that thread and i'm just trying to get a feel for what the best option is.
Could you maybe give me a tl;dr; other than just not worth the effort? Just trying to understand. On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 6:30:55 PM UTC-6, Derek Adair wrote: > > Thank you for updating those repositories it just didn't paint a very good > picture when i'm trying to debug issues and it looks like a very stagnant > project. > > I'll do some more digging but I really just wanted to engage the community > to see if anyone else has done any work on this or gauge the interest. > based on the responses it sounds like pretty much no. > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 2:42:22 PM UTC-6, Stephen McDonald wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Derek Adair <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 1. Better support from the grapelli project. There are issue's that >>> are ancient in both repositories with zero interaction from the project >>> owners. >>> >>> >> There were 9 open issues across the grappelli/filebrowser forks a moment >> ago - half of them were out of date and long ago resolved, so I've closed >> those now. Among the remaining are a couple of feature requests, a couple >> of obscure platform issues (Windows etc), and the one that you recently >> commented on. >> >> So realistically, there's one issue - the one you claim to have lost a >> lot of time on. Let's not get carried away here. >> >> >>> 1. There are almost NO docs on either of these projects. Any >>> issues are very complicated to debug because of this. >>> 2. The longer this project waits to do this the harder it will be. >>> Best to just get this over with now. >>> 3. Less work. Why even bother maintaining a fork when those reasons >>> have presumably been resolved. >>> >>> This should have been done immediately once it was at all possible to >>> for all of the above reasons. I haven't even really compared feature >>> sets these are just philosophical reasons why I believe upgrading is >>> the right decision here. However, I *completely* get why it has been >>> put off. This kind of work is *horrible* and rife with potential >>> breaking changes. >>> >>> I'll get back to you with some features, as for specific rasons there >>> are some pain points in integrating with django storages/s3boto... which >>> would have been alleviated in the new grapelli version. The new >>> filebrowser looks to be a lot cleaner with handling 3rd party integrations >>> (like s3boto). >>> >>> I'm also just curious why this hasn't been done and doesn't really seem >>> to even be talked about. >>> >> >> It's been talked about extensively on this list many times, if you dig >> around you'll be able to paint a much clearer picture than all the >> conclusions you've jumped to. >> >> >> >>> It seems like an obvious win if it is at all possible, maybe its not! >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:43:01 AM UTC-6, Ryne Everett wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm pretty set on figuring out a way to leverage the new grapelli >>>> >>>> >>>> Are there specific features you want? "Newer is better" isn't going to >>>> get much traction around here, but if you can point to advantages that >>>> cannot be realistically achieved in grapelli-safe that might be compelling. >>>> >>>> At any rate, what I would probably do is try to fork and upgrade >>>> mezzanine-grappelli. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Derek Adair <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I found this <https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mezzanine-grappelli> project >>>>> but its about 2 years w/o seeing any action, and is built w/ 3.0 not 4.0. >>>>> >>>>> I filed an issue asking what was up with the project and why was it >>>>> abandoned to maybe get some insight to see if this was even a good idea >>>>> or >>>>> not. I'm pretty set on figuring out a way to leverage the new grapelli >>>>> so >>>>> I'm just wondering if anyone else has any thoughts or work put towards >>>>> these efforts. >>>>> >>>>> I'm additionally considering just flat out forking mezzanine if an >>>>> upgrade path is too difficult or impossible.... as I have no code >>>>> implemented in this framework, yet. Just trying to think long-term here. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:06:11 PM UTC-6, Derek Adair wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there any reason not to be using the official grapelli now? >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Mezzanine Users" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Mezzanine Users" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Stephen McDonald >> http://jupo.org >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mezzanine Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
