Andy Babic

Thanks @loicteixeira. > Django 2.2 solves a big chunk of the problem, I think it would be reasonable to say "you need to use Django 2.2+ to benefit from those...

@loicteixeira A correction on my last post: > because wherever we could support proxy models (pages, snippets, modeladmin), we don't. I haven't actually tried to register proxy models as Snippets...

I might also add that the first approach is advantageous, because just using `for_concrete_model=False` would allow Wagtail to support proxy `Page` type models in < Django 2.2. This is because...

@chosak @loicteixeira. I figured adding support for proxy Page models would be a good place to start here, as permissions aren't an issue there (Wagtail implements it's own tree-based permission...

Hi @DanAtShenTech, Thanks. Yes, these issues are definitely known to me, and I'm planning to fix them soon after wagtail/wagtail#5202 has been merged. There's currently no way to manage proxy...

Hi @DanAtShenTech. Thanks for the input. In answer to a few of your points: > But maybe the level of interest in proxy model support in Wagtail prior to 2.5...

@DanielSwain that is kind of surprising. I thought the form itself only surfaces permissions for concrete models. But I must say, I have been rather a lot more focussed on...

I feel the best way to solve this is to support swapping the Form model for a custom one. This way, you'd be in complete control. If you know what...

@lingster you could do this by overriding the `base_form_class` on the `Form` model, and setting an initial value for fields in the `__init__` method, but it would be nicer to...

> could you do something like Form.base_form_class = MyPageForm instead? This is the approach I have taken in a recent project.