Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Link List / displayable_links not working on deployed admin

[Danny]

On 13/03/2016 2:46 PM, Eduardo Rivas wrote:


Are you deploying with git, hg, or rsync? If you have committed 
removals, they should be applied on production if using one of the VCS 
methods.




Turns out I'm using rsync. I'm looking into the --delete option, which 
might do the trick for me. I'm modifying my fabfile to suit, and adding 
a "diff" task which essentially runs rsync with --delete and -n 
(dry-run) to show me the diffs between the local and remote repositories.


In any case, it's a little trick - I can kind of understand why the 
default rsync options don't include --delete (after all, you'd have to 
be careful to not delete stuff on the production server which you may 
need) but I can't believe it tripped me up. I guess seeing a difference 
between my dev and production behaviour should have been a tipoff...


Seeya. Danny.

--
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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Link List / displayable_links not working on deployed admin

[Eduardo Rivas]

Are you deploying with git, hg, or rsync? If you have committed removals,
they should be applied on production if using one of the VCS methods.

-- 
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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Ryne Everett]

>
> 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  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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Derek Adair]

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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Ryne Everett]

I'm inclined to agree that this information isn't the easiest to find even
though it's in the FAQ.

I would suggest replacing the paragraph in each project's readme:

This repository exists for bug fixes and minor enhancements, and should
> some day become redundant, once the original {% project %} becomes a
> feasibly stable dependency target.


with a line incorporating that canonical FAQ link.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ryne Everett  wrote:

> I was about to suggest adding that to the FAQ but then I realized it's
> already there.
> http://mezzanine.jupo.org/docs/frequently-asked-questions.html#why-are-grappelli-and-filebrowser-forked
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Stephen McDonald  wrote:
>
>> The forks have diverged from their origins significantly - features
>> removed, Mezzanine specific things added. The fact they're separate repos
>> from Mezzanine is insignificant, their code bases might as well be part of
>> Mezzanine itself. This has been thrashed out multiple times on this list
>> already.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Derek Adair  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> 
>>>  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 
> 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 

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Ryne Everett]

I was about to suggest adding that to the FAQ but then I realized it's
already there.
http://mezzanine.jupo.org/docs/frequently-asked-questions.html#why-are-grappelli-and-filebrowser-forked

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Stephen McDonald  wrote:

> The forks have diverged from their origins significantly - features
> removed, Mezzanine specific things added. The fact they're separate repos
> from Mezzanine is insignificant, their code bases might as well be part of
> Mezzanine itself. This has been thrashed out multiple times on this list
> already.
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Derek Adair  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> 
>>  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 
 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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I found this  project
>>> but its about 2 years w/o seeing any action, and is built w/ 

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Stephen McDonald]

The forks have diverged from their origins significantly - features
removed, Mezzanine specific things added. The fact they're separate repos
from Mezzanine is insignificant, their code bases might as well be part of
Mezzanine itself. This has been thrashed out multiple times on this list
already.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Derek Adair  wrote:

> 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
> 
>  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 
>>> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> I found this  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.
>>
>> 

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Derek Adair]

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 

 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  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  
 wrote:

> I found this  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 

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Derek Adair]

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  > 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  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I found this  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 mezzanine-use...@googlegroups.com.
 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 mezzanine-use...@googlegroups.com .
>> 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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: SuspiciousOperation at filebrowser and s3

[Derek Adair]

Django Storages Redux  is now 
on github.  I think they even took over the pypi namespace.

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 7:54:03 PM UTC-5, Daniel Blasco wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A different way to deal with this problem by overriding modified_time 
> function, which actually fetches the object again from storage if 
> modified_time is None:
>
>
> from storages.backends.s3boto import S3BotoStorage, parse_ts_extended
>>
>> class MyS3BotoStorage(S3BotoStorage):
>> def modified_time(self, name):
>> name = self._normalize_name(self._clean_name(name))
>> entry = self.entries.get(name)
>> # only call self.bucket.get_key() if the key is not found
>> # in the preloaded metadata or if modified time stamp is empty.
>> if entry is None or not entry.last_modified:
>> entry = self.bucket.get_key(self._encode_name(name))
>> self._entries[name] = entry
>> # Parse the last_modified string to a local datetime object.
>> return parse_ts_extended(entry.last_modified)
>
>
> And then reference this new class from STATICFILES_STORAGE and 
> DEFAULT_FILE_STORAGE of your settings.
>
> By the way, it looks like the original project in bitbucket 
> https://bitbucket.org/david/django-storages is not being maintained. Is 
> there any fork or alternatives?
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 1:19:52 AM UTC+1, Tom Longson wrote:
>>
>> I'm having the ts.strip error still, tried using django-storages-redux, 
>> but ran into another error:
>>
>> ImproperlyConfigured at /admin/media-library/browse/
>> Error finding Upload-Folder. Maybe it does not exist?
>>
>> Looking for a solution still.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 6:53:44 PM UTC-7, Flavio Barros wrote:
>>>
>>> I Tryed the solution here but is not woking yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: photo] 
>>> *Flavio Barros*
>>> Doutorando, Unicamp 
>>> w:www.flaviobarros.net 
>>>
>>> 
>>> Meu Blog Handwritten digit recognition – Part1 
>>> 
>>> "In every CHOICES that we choose, There's always a RISK; But always 
>>> remember that there's also a chance" - Kent Solatorio Lopez 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Get a signature like this: 
>>> 
>>>  Click 
>>> here! 
>>> 
>>>  
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Flavio Barros  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm still having this problem. Any solutions?

 Em terça-feira, 9 de abril de 2013 11:37:39 UTC-3, Marcos Scriven 
 escreveu:
>
> Ah... well spotted!
>
> Looks like it is indeed a new issue. Was introduced here a couple of 
> weeks ago:
>  
>
>
> https://bitbucket.org/david/django-storages/commits/a3b2540a10a99e7332fa4ba2a9cd9a262a9a63f9
>
>
> Whereas I've not updated since Jan (version 1.1.6)
>
> Marcos
>
> -- 
 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 mezzanine-use...@googlegroups.com.
 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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Stephen McDonald]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Derek Adair  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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I found this  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 mezzanine-use...@googlegroups.com.
>>> 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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Derek Adair]

   
   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 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 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  > wrote:
>
>> I found this  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 mezzanine-use...@googlegroups.com .
>> 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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Ryne Everett]

>
> 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  wrote:

> I found this  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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[mezzanine-users] Re: Mezzanine + Grapelli?

[Derek Adair]

I found this  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 mezzanine-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.