| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
gwoo |
it's not quite there yet |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
gwoo |
we have been working with pointlessjon on a design |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
gwoo |
alkemann: yeah we need to get them on it |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
gwoo |
alkemann: great to hear. I been noticing the commits |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
alkemann |
do you think any of the people that said they would help, are into putting in some hours? |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:23 |
alkemann |
i think we are at a place now that people could be forking / branching and adding features, maybe get someone working on the design, view and layout |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:22 |
alkemann |
phally has come along way with the user plugin |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:21 |
alkemann |
gwoo: so now i have both test cases for article and article pages with full flow of creating, editing, publishing, with drafts and revisions, and working in the prototype app. |
| # |
Sep 24th 2009, 08:09 |
teknoid |
is it ok to reprint the article from my blog to bakery? or is that violation of terms? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 |
ProLoser1 |
ah |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 |
Predominant |
But sometimes its a mess of broken html |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 |
Predominant |
Sometimes its blank |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 |
Predominant |
ProLoser1: The whole email I get from the bakery is a mess. |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 17:22 |
ProLoser1 |
does anyone else get emails from the bakery with the <br /><br /> not getting parsed? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:13 |
Phally |
its not like i have never listened before d'oh |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:12 |
alkemann |
alters |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:12 |
alkemann |
i guess i will have to stop giving feedback if that lands me a "do it urself then". im allready overextended |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:08 |
Phally |
i thought so too, hence you can improve it yourself, i'm not offended ;) |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:07 |
alkemann |
i thought it was a team effort with collaboration, i appologize if i offended. |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:06 |
alkemann |
i see |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:05 |
Phally |
doesn't sound very normalized, but be my guest, rebuild it then, because i'm not planning to |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:04 |
alkemann |
yea |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:04 |
Phally |
that means you will have a lot of null titles then? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
alkemann |
so only let the root message have a title |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
Phally |
instead a conversation has a title |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
Phally |
i implemented it as i wanted, messages don't have titles |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
alkemann |
what then? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
Phally |
i did not |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:02 |
alkemann |
a lie? im saying u can implement it as u want. did u intend that when a user sends a message he gives a converstation title, a message title and a message body? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:02 |
Phally |
well that would be a lie then, click on a message and suddenly the title changes... |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:01 |
alkemann |
since a message know sthe root message, you can in your inbox either show the root message's title, the newest mesage's title, only allow title for the first, let them all haev titles, but show the root in the inbox. |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:00 |
Phally |
and give that title to every other message? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:59 |
alkemann |
the title of the root message |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:58 |
Phally |
for instance that i chose to have a subject for the conversation and not for every message |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:57 |
alkemann |
afaics all those features can be implemented with 1 table and 1 row per message, i dont see why you need to use 3 tables and 4 rows to do it d |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:56 |
Phally |
not really, i just explained the entire inbox depends on it |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:55 |
alkemann |
2 conversations_users, 1 message, 1 converasation for one system message because someone could want to expand this to be a convestation between multiple users? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
alkemann |
i guess i still dont understand then |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
Phally |
because this isn't? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
alkemann |
but if they need a forum or a something like a google group, why would they nto use that instead? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
Phally |
yet i failed, it seems :') |