Absolutely not necessary, especially if upgrading grappelli is to remain on the table at all. I'll start looking at how the mezzanine documentation is structured and see if i can't make some kind of contribution; I'd love to get involved i'm just still wrapping my head around it all. I should be able to at least contribute integrating with amazon s3 via filebrowser_safe, which has been my biggest pain point.
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:47:04 AM UTC-5, Ryne Everett wrote: > > Apologies, i read your comments as advocating for folding it into the code >> base. But please let me clarify what that means to me. I am not advocating >> for or against keeping these projects in the same repository, I am >> advocating for a clean break from the forks and ownership of these projects >> (which has all but already happens it seems). If there is no feasible >> upgrade path these projects probably deserve their own namespace, >> documentation and TLC. >> >> To me it would be easier to extend and customize in the sense of a much >> lower learning curve. Currently there are Mezzanine specific features in >> each of the projects that are made much more difficult to discover by not >> only the lack of documentation, but the naming conventions. A new >> developer can easily miss the subtle implications of the decision to fork >> these projects and it is by far and away not clear that there has been a >> clean break until you try to upgrade grappelli/filebrowser. >> >> I mean something as simple as just changing the names of these projects >> would go a LONG way here. Mezzanine-filebrowser + mezzanine-admin sounds >> good to me and would add tons of clarity to the dependency chain. >> > > Gotcha. I agree that renaming them mezzanine-<project> would make the > break clearer, but I don't think that's necessary. As for documentation, > I'm sure documentation patches would be accepted. > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Derek Adair <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Clearly I suck at collaborating via text. I'm not very experienced in >> it, I work much better when I can have discussions in person so its a >> challenge to articulate on these forums. Thank you all for your patience >> and responses. >> >> >> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:58:22 AM UTC-5, Derek Adair wrote: >>> >>> Apologies, i read your comments as advocating for folding it into the >>> code base. But please let me clarify what that means to me. I am not >>> advocating for or against keeping these projects in the same repository, I >>> am advocating for a clean break from the forks and ownership of these >>> projects (which has all but already happens it seems). If there is no >>> feasible upgrade path these projects probably deserve their own namespace, >>> documentation and TLC. >>> >>> To me it would be easier to extend and customize in the sense of a much >>> lower learning curve. Currently there are Mezzanine specific features in >>> each of the projects that are made much more difficult to discover by not >>> only the lack of documentation, but the naming conventions. A new >>> developer can easily miss the subtle implications of the decision to fork >>> these projects and it is by far and away not clear that there has been a >>> clean break until you try to upgrade grappelli/filebrowser. >>> >>> I mean something as simple as just changing the names of these projects >>> would go a LONG way here. Mezzanine-filebrowser + mezzanine-admin sounds >>> good to me and would add tons of clarity to the dependency chain. >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:55:17 PM UTC-6, Ryne Everett wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm all for bringing these projects into the code base if this is the >>>>> case. (says the guy w/ zero commits/PRs) I think that would have >>>>> alleviated >>>>> a very significant part of my confusion and you certainly wouldn't get >>>>> people like me asking this question in 20 different ways. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's a heavy-handed way to deal with a documentation issue. >>>> >>>> It would also make extending and customizing the look and feel a lot >>>>> easier. >>>> >>>> >>>> How so? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Derek Adair <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm all for bringing these projects into the code base if this is the >>>>> case. (says the guy w/ zero commits/PRs) I think that would have >>>>> alleviated >>>>> a very significant part of my confusion and you certainly wouldn't get >>>>> people like me asking this question in 20 different ways. It would also >>>>> make extending and customizing the look and feel a lot easier. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
