DEPLOY_FUTURE is redundant? #983

Closed
gour opened this Issue Jan 12, 2014 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants

gour commented Jan 12, 2014

Hi,

while reading Drafts section in the handbook I've got gut feeling that there are possibly too many options available and the Nikola could do without DEPLOY_FUTURE setting 'cause one can start with draft tag and simply remove it when the post is ready for deployment - it does not matter what is the value of FUTURE_IS_NOW setting?

Less (redundant) options is, imho, better.

Owner

Kwpolska commented Jan 12, 2014

cc @punchagan — the developer of this feature.

Owner

Kwpolska commented Jan 12, 2014

This setting also has deploy alter sites — all the drafts/future posts are deleted from the output directory, without any warning to the human.

Owner

ralsina commented Jan 12, 2014

IIRC FUTURE_IS_NOW is not about drafts, but about scheuled posts.

Owner

Kwpolska commented Jan 12, 2014

The documentation seems to be a bit messy IMO. But the original issue still stands: FUTURE_IS_NOW and DEPLOY_FUTURE is quite redundant, we could get rid of one.

gour commented Jan 12, 2014

IIRC FUTURE_IS_NOW is not about drafts, but about scheuled posts.

Right, but the topic is DEPLOY_FUTURE which we can get rid of by rm-ing 'draft' tag from the post.

Member

punchagan commented Jan 14, 2014

@gour Yes, that sounds right. We could use the draft tag.

FUTURE_IS_NOW and DEPLOY_FUTURE are not exactly equal. Setting DEPLOY_FUTURE would just publish the post, without making it visible in the indexes. FUTURE_IS_NOW would make the post visible in indexes also, essentially disables the feature of not publishing posts, until the time of the post is older than the site building time.

Kwpolska added the wontfix label May 10, 2014

Owner

Kwpolska commented May 10, 2014

This doesn’t seem like an issue. Closing.

Kwpolska closed this May 10, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment