On 20 May 2012 15:32, Pat Tressel <ptre...@myuw.net
> Will different templates have their own distinct sets of configuration
> variables (a la Wordpress themes) or would that be discouraged or handled
> out-of-band? That is, will a template only be a set of choices of settings
> defined in the base code, or can templates add code?
Some customisation elements may need some code rather than being pure
data - e.g. the menu & layout.
The parsing routines for Incoming messages developed this GSoC would be another.
There may be yet more that I don't currently have visibility of.
Do you have specific thoughts here?
>> * Move update_check from private to modules (keep code separate from data)
> Ok so long as the parts that move to modules only need to be updated on the
> same schedule as modules. Some of the "code" in update_check is actually
> serves the function of data. If we want to make it truly data-driven, we'd
> have to define a data structure to represent the tests, so the generic check
> code could just execute each data-specified test in turn.
That could indeed be a useful task...although wouldn't need to be done
during this iteration.
>> I am aware that this will cause a 1-time significant merge conflict. I
>> am totally prepared to provide personal assistance to anyone through
>> that if-necessary.
> The trick is to identify sites that are using the code that we aren't in
> active contact with currently, or to (automatically) alert sites that do an
> update that they're in for some work.
You're right that we should build in some kind of clear warning for
existing installs which are upgrading...I will factor this in.
Any site which is updating their code should really be on this mailing
list as currently this still requires some level of technical
engagement - we're not yet providing discrete upgrade packages to a
I would love to be in a position to do that, but it's not where we're at now.
Of course, Production sites should be upgrading via staging sites, so
wouldn't have this affect Production users.
My sense is that most independent installs are either in no-dev mode
or else still in dev trials anyway.
> Would be nice to
> encourage potential users to fork the code on Github rather than just
> cloning it or (worse) copying it without revision data.
I think many potential users don't want to have to code - they just
want to be able to do a minimal amount of configuration.