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.
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.
This is probably a good idea @eviltrout. We will need to support both forms for backwards compatibility for a while.
I have a large-ish PR for this now. Looking for more eyeballs from the team before I merge it in:
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
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!
@eviltrout, it looks like admin is still using /users
- is that intentional?
Yeah, that was a whole second set of routes that were not publicly visible so I omitted them.