You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I see that someone else has had problems with Cells 4.x not following the standard conventions for naming templates. #460 But the solution is opaque .
We have a large project with a lot of .html.erb templates and _.html.erb partials which worked with cells 3.x and don't work with cells 4.x . I don't want to go through renaming them because it's an unnecessary pain.
Is there some reason why this change was made, and not documented in the upgrade guide?
If I forked the project, made a PR to correct this issue would it be accepted or is there some deep reason why the standard naming convention isn't being followed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I see that someone else has had problems with Cells 4.x not following the standard conventions for naming templates. #460 But the solution is opaque .
We have a large project with a lot of .html.erb templates and _.html.erb partials which worked with cells 3.x and don't work with cells 4.x . I don't want to go through renaming them because it's an unnecessary pain.
Is there some reason why this change was made, and not documented in the upgrade guide?
If I forked the project, made a PR to correct this issue would it be accepted or is there some deep reason why the standard naming convention isn't being followed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: