Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improved tree properties #598

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

jimallman
Copy link
Member

These changes reflect our latest thinking in tree properties, as discussed in #552 and #555. Available now for review on devtree.

This also does a one-time capture of the deprecated ot:curatedType field before discarding it, as described in #555 (comment). (This will have no effect if this migration has already been done on the server, which is probably the wiser path.)

This includes a one-time migration of matching method names, if found in
the old ot:curatedType property. Addresses #552, #555.
This also does a one-time capture of the deprecated ot:curatedType
field before discarding it, as described in
#555 (comment).
Addresses #552, #555.
@jar398
Copy link
Member

jar398 commented Feb 19, 2015

Awaiting review from KC and the MIAPA list

@jimallman
Copy link
Member Author

@kcranston: The changes here to Nexson tree properties (incl. multiple inference method values, and a separate tree type) were the result of a lot of conversation, so I want to confirm that we're not planning to merge these changes. (As I noted elsewhere, these commits also crept into the 'support-tree-collections' branch, so I'll need to reverse them in that PR.)

As a reminder, here's the current UI on production (before these changes):
screen shot 2015-09-19 at 4 16 26 am

And here's the UI as modified by this PR:
screen shot 2015-09-19 at 4 17 16 am

jimallman added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2015
NOTE that we're keeping the inference-method UI changes from the
support-tree-collections branch. These have not been formally accepted
for merging, but I need them intact to attempt a git revert of this PR:

#598
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants