Continuing the discussion from Design choice behind /t, /c, and /users:
@Sam requested a specific topic…here it is.
There have been requests for /u/ to work in a URL similar to how /c/ and /t/ work.
AI-generated summary
A discussion was started to allow /u/ to work like /users/ in Discourse URLs. jomaxro initiated the conversation, which was previously discussed in Design choice behind /t, /c, and /users. codinghorror supported the idea, emphasizing the need for backwards compatibility. eviltrout created a pull request to implement the change, which was later merged. The update replaces /users/ with /u/ in URLs, but maintains backwards compatibility with the old paths for a long time. However, eviltrout encourages reporting any bugs and considers paths with /users as bugs. jomaxro noted that admin URLs still use /users, which eviltrout explained was due to a separate, non-publicly visible set of routes that were omitted.
7개의 좋아요
This is probably a good idea @eviltrout. We will need to support both forms for backwards compatibility for a while.
4개의 좋아요
I have a large-ish PR for this now. Looking for more eyeballs from the team before I merge it in:
8개의 좋아요
Okay, I’ve merged in support, so as of now the latest Discourse will have /u/ in the path instead of /users. Please let me know if you find any issues!
For backwards compatibility, the old paths will work for a very long time. However, definitely point out places that we missed, because long term we want to remove all the old paths.
edit: This doesn’t seem live here on meta yet because we’re reviewing the auto_reopen code
6개의 좋아요
Update, this is now present here on meta. Please report any bugs as you find them! I consider any path with /users to be a bug, even if it’s working!
7개의 좋아요
@eviltrout, it looks like admin is still using /users - is that intentional?
3개의 좋아요
Yeah, that was a whole second set of routes that were not publicly visible so I omitted them.
2개의 좋아요