Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:01 pm
We are now requiring at least a minimum amount of due diligence on the part of the MOD Author. Why should we commit our precious time and resources if the MOD Author cannot even commit to a few baseline requirements? We won't. Therefore, here is the Insta-Deny™ Checklist:
- Run through the MOD Validator - it is not as reliable as it soon will be, so you should manually check anything it is rejecting. Also, it is currently a bit more picky in parsing the MOD Header than I would like. The general rule of thumb for the header is that if the major components are there, let it go. If you do find even one thing that we cannot accept, then Insta-Deny this MOD. Do no further processing on it. Do not waste our time. Deny it, stating whatever info was discovered, and clear it from the Queue!
- Test with EasyMOD preview mode - we are *NOT* requiring Authors to use, install, or endorse EM. But if their MOD fails to install with EM on a virgin phpBB install then they had better have a darn good reason why! EM will make sure the MOD obeys several MOD Template requirements beyond what the Validator looks at. EM does not add any other special requirements beyond what is listed in the Template so there are very few reasons why a MOD won't work with it. If you do find even one thing that we cannot accept, then Insta-Deny this MOD. Do no further processing on it. Do not waste our time. Deny it, stating whatever info was discovered, and clear it from the Queue!
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:53 pm
Releasing to public.
If your MOD doesn't pass any of the above, we don't check the rest. We deny it immediatly.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:16 pm
this is nice. now more mods can be released because mod team doesn't have to waste time on mistakes mod authors do.
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:49 pm
This should be updated to add one word to the above requirements to make it a bit more clear to stubborn MOD authors:
Test with EasyMOD preview mode - we are *NOT* requiring Authors to use, install, or endorse EM. But if their MOD fails to install CORRECTLY with EM on a virgin phpBB install then they had better have a darn good reason why!
One MOD author is now insisting that EM change to comply with his MOD script. But since his MOD doesn't install CORRECTLY
with EM, his MOD should be removed from the MOD database until it can be corrected. He has been informed of the problem and given an easy fix for it, yet he continues to argue that EM should change to work for his MOD. All he needs to do is add 6 lines of code to his MOD to get it to install CORRECTLY
using EM, but so far he is resisting this. Unfortunately, this is adversely affecting those who install his MOD when using EM. I wonder how many have started over not knowing how to fix this problem? This shouldn't be acceptable and the MOD should be removed from the MOD database until it is corrected, which would take all of less than a minute since I provided the fix to the problem for him...
Topic Calendar (regular phpBB edition)
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:28 pm
Uhmmm, nightrider you're wrong as that mod does indeed install with EzMod....per numerous peoples reports in the topic thread.
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:21 pm
Actually it works on some sites and not others. Whether the wildcards work or not seems to depend on Host retrictions. If there is an easy way to design MODs so that they will install on most sites, that is the better approach...
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:50 pm
@NightriderXP, I think you've beat this to death, both here and at area51. The MOD Team leader (wGEric) commented here
. That should be good enough for you.
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:42 am
Drathbun, I am more than happy to move forward. But if you and others want to continue bringing the topic back to life, I am more than happy to continue explaining the problem to you all. If you want to let it die, do so. If you want to keep discussing it, keep responding to the topic and I will be more than happy to continue it with you until you and everyone else understands the problem and how easy it is to correct...
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:10 am
But if you and others want to continue bringing the topic back to life, I am more than happy to continue explaining the problem to you all.
Let's look at this, shall we? You are the one that won't let it die, and I've watched this spread all over this baord and area51 as well. Earlier today, you posted yet again
in this topic. I said "drop it", you ignored my instructions and posted again. It's you that won't drop the topic.
I will state this very clearly: your question has been addressed by wGEric, the leader of the MOD Team. If you have a problem, take it up with him. In private.
Again, stated very clearly: your issue has been raised, recognized, and addressed by the MOD Team leader. Drop it.
Another post on this topic gets you a warning.
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:27 am
Before making claims that aren't true, check the timestamps of the messages above. This had been brought back to life at 10:28 am Oct 12, 2006 by RMcGirr83. I simply responded to him. Then you jumped in. I will be happy to let it die again if you and everyone else chooses to do the same...
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:58 am
Actually, Nightrider, installing with EasyMOD is not a requirement to be in the MOD database. As the quote you provided clearly states, the MOD team does not require MOD authors to support EasyMOD and if their MOD doesn't install they should have a good reason. Chances are, Ptirhiik has a good reason. I don't know why you feel the need to beat this to death, bumping a 9 month old thread just to pick bones.
So, no, his MOD should not be pulled from the MOD database because it doesn't install with EasyMOD. The MOD team has consistently stated that installing with EasyMOD is NOT a requirement.
Let it go.
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:08 am
Not liking EM is not considered a good reason not to follow the standards that allow MODs to install using EM. IF you want to see why that standard is so important, go to phpBBHacks.com and you will see many different and confusing MOD script formats and many MODs that just don't work. The standard here is that the MOD must be installable using EM or be able to prove that there is no way to write the MOD so that EM can install it. Not liking EM is not considered a good excuse to skurt the requirement...
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:22 am
The standard here is that the MOD must be installable using EM or be able to prove that there is no way to write the MOD so that EM can install it.
And where, exactly, does it state that a MOD must
be installable using EM? There's no requirement, here. I think that Ptirhiik has proven that his MOD works and is secure. Will EM choke on it? Not that I've seen, and many others have installed it with EM just fine, so I fail to see why you are so up in arms about this. If he's given a good explanation as to why his MOD may
not install correctly with EM, and the MOD Team has accepted this explanation, why are you questioning it? I fail to see the problem here. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just fail to see why this is such a big problem to you.
If installing through EM was a requirement, then I would see your point. The only requirement is that the MOD file conforms to the MOD Template, which it does perfectly.
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:35 am
At the top of this topic, you will see two conditions that can be used to deny a MOD. The second condition is that they Test with EasyMOD and if their MOD fails to install with EM on a virgin phpBB install then they had better have a darn good reason why!
. The darn good reason why isn't that the MOD author doesn't like EM so he won't correct a problem in his MOD script if it becomes apparent that it cannot be installed using EM in it's present form....
I have stated the problem and provided a simple fix to it. I will not "fight" you simply because you refuse to understand the problem nor the stipulations in the Insta-Deny Checklist. If the requirements in the Insta-Deny Checklist are no longer considered valid, then it should be modified to clarify the situation. Otherwise, the Insta-Deny Checklist requirements should apply to all MOD authors no matter who they are...
You claim not to come for a fight, yet you don't seem to want to let it die. I will be happy to let this topic die if you are willing to do the same. I wasn't the one who brought this issue back to life yesterday, so don't blame me simply because someone else chose to do so...
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:33 am
I am locking this before it turns into a flame war,
Here is the official policy:
EasyMOD is beta software, and as such while we use it as a tool to help validation, it is not required that MODs install with easyMOD. That said, MODs must still follow the MOD Template standard to the letter, something that easyMOD would also have to do if it were to be released as a final.
Until such time EasyMOD is perfect, the MOD Team will continue to not require MODs to install with EasyMOD, and if such a time comes, the policy may or may not be reviewed. The question is then, why would it need to be reviewed when we have the standard and both have to follow. Thereby EasyMOD is not the issue here, it's a means for realising the real issue, which is the MOD Template standard.