| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:19 |
AD7six |
ok. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:19 |
alkemann |
no matter who u reply to, your reply is posted last with the original comment as parent |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:18 |
AD7six |
and the 1 level deep bit? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:15 |
alkemann |
if u post a new comment it is a root node. if u reply it is a level 2 node |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:15 |
AD7six |
what does "Threaded replies, one level deep" mean |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:14 |
AD7six |
k |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:14 |
alkemann |
AD7six: please read the specc stuff. we have changed the edit moderation system |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:13 |
AD7six |
ADmad: pending edit |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:13 |
ADmad |
AD7six: do we need a status for page too ? its not as if one page on article will be offline and others not |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:12 |
alkemann |
the comment stuff doesnt look like it matches specc |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 |
AD7six |
so whatelse http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1732/schematicmneatooc5.png |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 |
alkemann |
example : http://debuggable.com/posts/google-analytics-php-api-cakephp-model:480f4dd5-b2a4-452a-b4ed-4f3fcbdd56cb |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 |
jperras |
add in the complexity that I described with permissions, and it's not a very scalable implementation |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 |
ADmad |
this is a tiny but important feature... dont want ppl to be refering to stale stuff like those printed books |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:10 |
AD7six |
good point |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:10 |
alkemann |
this tag is not jsut a visual thing on the article page, it removes the article from several other features. like search and front page |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 |
alkemann |
nope |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 |
AD7six |
alkemann: to put it another way is there any other kind of big-red-box-or-other effect you're planning on adding |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 |
alkemann |
they do now. dont see why we should stop that |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 |
jperras |
because a normal user shouldn't be able to tag an article as deprecated |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 |
AD7six |
oh I see because users are going to be able to tag things themselves? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 |
jperras |
and then need to blacklist tags (or use a pre-defined dropdown of tags) for user input |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 |
alkemann |
it's just infinitly easier and also more effective to have a boolean in article table |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 |
AD7six |
how so, or is the concept of tags changing for the bakery |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 |
jperras |
since you need to take into account the permission system |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 |
jperras |
AD7six: tags for deprecation can get overly complex |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 |
AD7six |
what? I don't understand your logic |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 |
AD7six |
and select articles from article left join articles_tags where tag_id = x is not expensive at all |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 |
alkemann |
but implement this with tag and all article finds are findByTag |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 |
AD7six |
alkemann: there has to be a find by tag anyway |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 |
alkemann |
far from free |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 |
alkemann |
AD7six: nope. i never get upset about discussions :) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 |
AD7six |
and besides how expensive is a join |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 |
AD7six |
alkemann: where is taht a requirement |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 |
AD7six |
it was only that - a discussion from my point of view |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 |
alkemann |
find('all',array('deprecated' => false)) with no recursiveness, vs checking for deprecated tag for all articles |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 |
AD7six |
alkemann: are you still sore over that session discussion? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 |
AD7six |
alkemann: where is your "filter out deprecated articles" stuff coming from |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 |
alkemann |
someone else understand me can rephrase? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 |
gwoo |
ACTION knows AD7six too well :P |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 |
alkemann |
i agree |
