I agree with Jeffrey.
2016-09-02 11:52 GMT-03:00 Michał Jastrzębski :
> +1 to Jeffrey's points. We should deprecate old footer mechanism and
> remove it alltogether in Ocata timeframe.
>
> On 1 September 2016 at 23:51, Jeffrey Zhang
> wrote:
> > 1. so
+1 to Jeffrey's points. We should deprecate old footer mechanism and
remove it alltogether in Ocata timeframe.
On 1 September 2016 at 23:51, Jeffrey Zhang wrote:
> 1. so i think we need add the deprecated status to the include_footer option
> and print a warn.
> 2. when
1. so i think we need add the deprecated status to the include_footer
option and print a warn.
2. when the use specifies both two footers, they should both work rather
than ignore one. it print warn already.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Swapnil Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Fri,
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Zhang wrote:
> We introduced customization solution.
>
> Now, we support two format of footer.
>
> 1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }}
> 2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %}
>
> there two conflict about this
We introduced customization solution.
Now, we support two format of footer.
1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }}
2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %}
there two conflict about this now[0][1].
I think the option 2 is better. We can get more consistent solution.
[0]