Gina Content Management System
Default presentation forms created by Textpattern v4.6.2.
For 15 years, that’s what I’ve seen after a default install of TXP.
Those first few weeks in 2005, evaluating TXP on my home server, was very confusing, only because of the above screenshot.
Programmer hat on; so the default form under the Article form type must kick off some logic pertaining to that form type. Why yes here it is, while editing an Article form type form, I can view it’s output. That feature, live viewing a form’s output, never really worked well, and was removed 11 years later.
Changes in 4.6.0 (10 Sep 2016)
Changed: Removed Form (article) Preview facility.
So TXP 4.6.0 removes the only logic in the core that would barf up a lung if I happened to mess with the form type Article. So why do we still have default Form Types littering the backend of a new install?
Wait for it, “We’ve always done it this way, and our core audience, web developers, make extensive use of form types to organize complex websites”.
Yeah, that’s cool and all, but I’m talking about a default install (same question that I’ve posed on the support forum since the days of Zem).
When I installed Textpattern 4.8.3, the day after I woke up my keyboard from it’s slumber, I was greeted with the new theme mechanism.
Moisture in my eyes, say no more, long time coming. I’d like to thank Stef and those that helped with themes. I missed the biggest event in TXP history!
Tears continued more profusely, default form types, from the days of Sencer, populate the backend.
The install code is grabbing the default look from:
setup/themes/four-point-eight/forms, pages, styles
Under the forms folder: article, comment, file, link and misc form type folders.
See above screenshot for reference.
Ben, a budding Theme developer wants to make a Blog Theme:
Followed along this far?
Yeah, what the fuck, right?
15 whole years wasted on Form Type naming conventions.
15 years of a head start, every other CMS has had, for lack of Themes.
What a tale to tell have I, this has got to be the stupidest or the most grossly inept handling of an Open Source project I’ve ever witnessed.
Like it was made to fail, is the only explanation I have. No Open Source project lead would deny a change in the code base that would definitely attract more users, not a one. Zem, Wet, Phil and Stef, you’ve got some ‘splaining to do!
And if the cloud bursts thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you’re in starts playing different tunes
I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon