On 08/02/2016 03:41 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Hey Mark, are you using the new template stuff from git? How do you like it? I haven't heard any feedback on it, but the footers look nice at least. :)
Yes, I am. It works well. I like the fact that there's a set of replacements available for all templates. I have several 'site' templates on both mpo an lm3o that have working web links, and Im just now mace a list template for this list and for overload-sig with an archive link. It could be a 'site' template, but not all lists will archive.
I was going to say an archive link is in the headers if people look, but it doesn't seem to be there. I'll investigate.
Also, something strange happened. At 14:11 today this stuff
ll -R Huh_overload-sig.python.org/ Huh_overload-sig.python.org/: total 12 drwxrwsr-x 3 mailman mailman 4096 Aug 2 14:11 . drwxrwsr-x 5 mailman mailman 4096 Aug 2 18:41 .. drwxrwsr-x 2 mailman mailman 4096 Aug 2 14:11 en
Huh_overload-sig.python.org/en: total 12 drwxrwsr-x 2 mailman mailman 4096 Aug 2 14:11 . drwxrwsr-x 3 mailman mailman 4096 Aug 2 14:11 .. -rw-rw---- 1 mailman mailman 143 Aug 2 14:11 list_member_regular_footer.txt
(without the 'Huh_' prefix) was created in var/templates/lists/. The contents are:
$display_name mailing list $listname %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
which looks like the 'old' template. I looked through all the logs and could find nothing relevant with a 14:11 timestamp. Any ideas? Maybe a test, but I didn't run any tests.
-- Mark Sapiro email@example.com The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan