-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
A little bit of background on this one: this came up as a bug report,
as a not marked as "visible" (checkbox "Visible" on the UI)
doesn't
shows up on the navigation, which effectively makes the node "hidden".
But an user that knows the URL of said node would still be able to see
it and share the URL with other users.
I understand that "fixing" this bug would introduce a change in the
behavior, which might affect people using this as a feature. As in: do
not mark this node as visible, but put a link to it from inside the
content of a page. If we suddenly just restrict access to this page,
this behavior would be broken.
The idea then was to ask the user explicitly if access to the node
should be restricted. For all existing nodes, it defaults to "no". For
new nodes, if the publishing date is set, this field is checked by
default.
Does it makes sense?
Juca.
On 01/24/2014 11:32 AM, Bolesław Dawidowicz wrote:
W dniu 23/01/14 17:00, Juraci Paixão Kröhling pisze:
>
> @Julien: do you want to discuss whether this feature would be
> accepted into master? Should I send a PR, or would you prefer to
> review it on my repository?
>
Btw :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS4kJOAAoJECKM1e+fkPrX/OEH/jzMRaTuDWtPKrB8JtI6sma4
jDvOJK4k9QSFqpZkwouLtB7pdM1Ij+3y99QJNVQaMwUrbqCvXLW3/5qcEjEh1bpN
12T5ahP5HqUIwKGUIhyiXcswMXsqVpKFQyVbJnSXUBbhO43ak35Elxkn+anUkWJA
jM0Yn+V8/LpbQZPeqzxlaPtlsJletpslAz94FMZLHEWQTBHp3e1dhgnZVBhOT1bp
0CBCU9sVO77KbbLxifC06MsGSxGt4f5DDRQuUceQhCdMWomcK8T+tFcixM6F1+zg
jVLJA8J0KX1GTtg0OjRe8RlYuMWPD1dE4obnTzsdaEIZhWAA49vYqKMsQLOS7yw=
=in1C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----