Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
(that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out repeatedly)
will do that when this whole issue is
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
(that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out repeatedly)
will
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
(that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
RG Perhaps you could start with
RG http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470
RG as this is a blocker for the 0.7 release
will try and look at that tomorrow: right now I understand only half
of what I'm
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Me neither. ;-) I guess Ross meant mainly
http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-362
No I don't think so, but this a good issue for the thread about
renaming things. Sorry for not having read the issues first. I'll
reply to this in the renaming thread.
--
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
RG Perhaps you could start with
RG http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470
RG as this is a blocker for the 0.7 release
will try and look at that tomorrow: right now I understand only half
Ross Gardler wrote:
The way we handle raw content has changed (it no longer has its own
directory it is kept alongside the to be processed content). As a
consequence the documentation is incorrect. Someone needs to go through
the docs and correct it. We also need some samples adding to
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
The way we handle raw content has changed (it no longer has its own
directory it is kept alongside the to be processed content). As a
consequence the documentation is incorrect. Someone needs to go through
the docs and correct it. We also
Ross Gardler wrote:
Prior to this change raw content was kept in a separate directory. This
meant users had to manage two directory structures, which, more of ten
than not, were the same. Now we just place the *raw* files in the xdocs
directory. (which means the xdocs name is now misleading
Sorry. Now I'm totally confused as to where raw content (= content
that will be passed on without processing) should be from 0.7 on.
If it is to be kept alongside the to be processed content as Ross
wrote, we already have what I asked for and we only need to move xdocs
in content.
But then I
I'd like to reduce freshsite to be what the name says: a fresh site
w/o content and menus. Are there reasons to have it like this, do we
need to offer two different options like
forrest seed (for bare bones fresh site)
forrest demo (to generate a demo site)
If the latter is
Ross Gardler wrote:
RG Perhaps you could start with
RG http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470
RG as this is a blocker for the 0.7 release
will try and look at that tomorrow: right now I understand only half
of what I'm reading there.
--
Ferdinand Soethe
12 matches
Mail list logo
