I'm hoping to do a quick blog post and wiki page about this this week. But if all you need to do is hide some things and you are on 0.9, then edit overrides.css. It's the last stylesheet loaded and it won't be touched by updates.
But the new CSS won't be generated if the already-generated file is there, so it stands to reason that you'd need to delete it to see the change. On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Joel Oliveira wrote: > Hey John - Thanks for the tip. I've considered that too, but on a > production system I guess that's not the best tack, which brings me to what I > might consider the final answer ... I shouldn't be making CSS updates on a > production system anyway, right? Right. > > The edge-case in this scenario was that I wanted to turn off a few elements > while some issues got straightened out, and that being the case I just went > into the main css file and did them by hand while we got these straightened > out. > > It's an oddity, and a bit curious as to what isn't allowing it to refresh the > css, but in the end a non-issue. > > Thanks again! > > - Joel > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:08 AM, John W. Long <m...@johnwlong.com> wrote: > Have you tried deleting the CSS files? That should cause Sass to > regenerate them. I often have to do this when I redeploy new Sass. > Lame I know. > > -- > John Long > http://wiseheartdesign.com > http://recursivecreative.com > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Joel Oliveira <joel.olive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi everyone - > > Just deployed a new site to production and for some reason my changes to > > sass files aren't being reflected in the main "compiled" css file. > > Standard stack on production, nginx with ree + passenger. > > Things I've done to remedy - > > 1 - touch tmp/restart.txt > > 2 - restarted nginx > > 3 - I thought that maybe it was a permissions thing so I gave the compiled > > stylesheet write permissions for www-data > > None of those three did the trick. Is there anything else I should try? > > I suppose I could run sass explicitly from its location in vendor but that > > would feel a bit hack-y, no? > > Thanks everyone! > > - Joel >