Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Do not post support requests, bug reports or feature requests. Discuss phpBB here. Non-phpBB related discussion goes in General Discussion!
Scam Warning
User avatar
leviatan21
Registered User
Posts: 2663
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:22 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Name: Gabriel

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by leviatan21 »

BTW : this is not a request topic, just for feedback .
Acyd Burn wrote:This topic is not for suggesting we add feature X, Y and Z to 3.0.6, please stick to discussing what we have announced. Thanks.
As a forum manager, I'm glad to read about the future releases
As a mod developer, I'm happy to read improvements, add-on, etc., about the future releases.

Again : Thanks to all teams for your effort and share it with us :ugeek:
Excuse me for my poor English, I speak Spanish. | Image phpBB en Español
daredevil33
Registered User
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:56 pm

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by daredevil33 »

phpbb is forums and many users post from different IP.

1. I would like to see in built IP mode in it. Each forums ex. SMF, vBulletin, IPB, etc have that in it.
2. WYSIWYG Editor.
3. Rating/Karma System. It's forums. Give people option to use it which is inbuilt rather then taking 30mins to install that mode and in which average customers break their forums.
4. vBulletin, SMG, IPB, etc comes with Calendar. It's a forum no doubt but calendar definitely helps.

Thanks for adding RSS/Atom feeds. Much appreciated.

Also, a little fix which spam check is using. I received an email from CBL team:
"The CBL should only be used to block email sent
to your MX from the internet.

It should not be used to block forum posters,
since that's not what the CBL was designed for.

If you _do_ use it to block forum posters, you
must not refer to the CBL in the rejection or
error message that is issued, since that unfairly
shifts the support inquires for the unsupported
use of the CBL to us. Any error message should
point the user to your own support address, for
you to decide whether or not to allow that user
to post, despite a CBL listing."
User avatar
Phil
Former Team Member
Posts: 10403
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:11 am
Name: Phil Crumm
Contact:

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by Phil »

Acyd Burn wrote:This topic is not for suggesting we add feature X, Y and Z to 3.0.6, please stick to discussing what we have announced. Thanks.
Moving on, with the wind. | My Corner of the Web
User avatar
Eelke
Registered User
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:00 am
Location: NL, Bussum
Name: Eelke Blok
Contact:

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by Eelke »

I'm a bit late to the party, but I would just like to quickly voice my opinion here too, which is actually very similar to SamG's. It also relates to something I've said just recently, that it seems that the developer's have bitten off a chunk that's too large when it comes to the intended feature set for 3.2. The story with 3.2 is starting to sound more and more like 2.2.

It used to be extremely clear; 3.0 was feature frozen, any new features would be introduced with 3.2. The signal started to become a little less clear when template inheritence was added, but alas, it was a small feature that your every day user (not end- user, but board administrator even) wouldn't likely notice and yet was a huge improvement for template designers. Plus, it was low hanging fruit so much that you actually had to crouch down to pick it. Tweaks to the CAPTCHA system for 3.0.5 are similar; although much less trivial to implement, it is very much an evolutionary step that, at least to me, can very well be defended to be included in a maintenance release.

But with 3.0.6, we've clearly just abondoned that idea altogether. 3.0.6 will be a feature release, it's even stated in the announcement. The situation (IMHO) will become completely unclear so I too would advocate labeling this 3.1, or if you realy feel the Linux versioning scheme needs to be maintained, 3.2 (it is funny, though, how people are completely on board with the development team abandoning one "universal truth" of the community, with point releases being feature frozen, and on the other hand are presenting another of those "universal truths" as being just that, namely "phpBB follows the Linux versioning scheme" - which, in truth has never lead to a clear public result, because 2.2 would have been the first release to show this policy, which, as we all know, turned into 3.0. I think the development team has just demonstrated they are actually quite open minded towards dropping those "universal truths").

If the argument of principality does not ring with you (because this is what this ultimately is, although I think the versioning also has some implications wrt policies), think for a minute about what someone who is not so close to the heart of the phpBB community will think. 3.0.6 just looks 0.0.1 better than 3.0.5. This may sound silly, but it really does. Who is going to get, just from the version number, that, hey, phpBB actually has some cool new features. Nothing special, but still, filling in some of the most requested features.

Anyway, enough rambling about the version number. I am actually curious if we are saying things for the first time. Probably not; from what I imagine, these discussions are probably just a repetition of what has already been discussed at length within the development team.

Purely from a feature standpoint, this is a wonderful release. I am actually happy that quick reply is being included (another one of those "universal truths"). Not for myself, but just because the whole thing was actually pretty silly. RSS/Atom feeds is also a good thing, it's really something that belongs in a product like phpBB3, anno 2009. To give the CAPTCHA system priority to get it out there also makes a lot of sense.
ihermit
Registered User
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:26 am

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by ihermit »

Sorry, but is the version number that important? :?
I mean, the version numbers have been consistent up till this point, why would they suddenly just jump and change it to 3.2 when 3.2 is already in development?
User avatar
.Joel
Registered User
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:41 pm

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by .Joel »

Excellent work to the phpBB team!

As an admin of a large and growing board whereby we have modified it so much to suit us that it is nearly unrecognizable as phpBB seeing new features is a double edged sword. Whilst it's great to have new features, the mundane and boring like myself actually enjoy just security updates :D

It is great to see Quick Reply added in, I watched a conference with a few members of the phpBB team and one comment on the video was "we design software for human beings and they want..." etc. I thought to myself, if you truely knew what they want Quick Reply would have been in there a long time ago. Personally I don't like it, it leads to more crap, however our members wanted it so I put it in and threw a 25 minimum character limit to combat the inherited spam.

Hats off to the whole phpBB team, 3.0 and up is by far in my opinion the best piece of forum software available and this comes from a multi-year and long history with VB and IPB from the iKonBoard days. Great work and keep it up!

Regards,

.Joel
suitlocal
Registered User
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:18 pm

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by suitlocal »

daredevil33 wrote:2. WYSIWYG Editor.
oh. god. i hate wysiwyg. you hand format a post in wordpress and then the wordpress wysiwyg messes it all up.
3. Rating/Karma System. It's forums. Give people option to use it which is inbuilt rather then taking 30mins to install that mode and in which average customers break their forums.
karma systems create karma whores and karma whores are the worst thing the internet has ever produced. why bother discussing a topic when you can rate someone down instead? why bother dissenting even when dissent may be justified if it will get you rated down? karma whores take group think to a whole new level and no site that supports it is better for it.
4. vBulletin, SMG, IPB, etc comes with Calendar. It's a forum no doubt but calendar definitely helps.
how about firefox get email support too! it's a browser no doubt but email definitely helps.</sarcasm>
User avatar
Eelke
Registered User
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:00 am
Location: NL, Bussum
Name: Eelke Blok
Contact:

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by Eelke »

@ihermit: The risk of trying to voice your opinion as accurately as possible, so that people understand what you are trying to say, is that you use a lot of words, and people tend to relate the number of words you spend on something to how important you feel it is. FWIW, I just use lots of words, all the time ;) Sorry.

The version number in and of itself may be not that important. Just a label, right? (Although I think, yes, the version number in and of itself is actually more important than you appear to think - maybe just not as important as you think I feel it is, due to the number of words I used to voice my opinion ;)). Anyway, the version number wouldn't "suddenly" jump, it would be increased appropriately to indicate an advance in features, as opposed to just being a maintenance release, which is what the version number "3.0.6" indicates to anyone who has not read the announcement on phpBB.com.

You say "3.2 is already in development, so why change it now". That's reverse logic and, IMHO, is actually the problem (and the reason why this is more important than just the importance of the label that is stuck to the release); deciding on a very ambitious feature set up front, putting the label "3.2" on that in advance, only to realize it's probably a bit too ambitious and now having to do an intermediate feature release that is not designated as one, by backporting stuff into the 3.0 branch. I think this being "necessary" ("necessary" definately being a relative term, but I think these advancements are very welcome) is an indication that maybe the way the project is planned needs some thought.

I think that maybe a better approach would be to come up with a long list of features that you would like, and then going off and working on them (so far so good, exactly what the developers have been doing). However, instead of setting this feature list in stone, just see how far you get. Instead of making the process feature driven, it can be time driven. After a fixed amount of time you evaluate whether it makes sense to work towards a stable release with a subset of the features you've been working on (i.e. the ones that can be stabilized fairly quickly). Maybe you decide, no, we don't have anything yet that we can get stable very soon, or we really need feature X (and Y, and Z) to be complete as well. But it gives you the chance of deciding at a later stage on the features that will be in the next release, which makes the process more flexible. Actually, what is happening now isn't all that different, except that moving these features into the 3.0 branch is a workaround, a bandaid to relief the most pressing needs in the community. It's not a natural part of the process.

But alas, again, FWIW. I don't want to give this thread a completely negative vibe, because in and of itself, making these features available to the community is a great thing. Kudos to the development team for making this decision. I just hope that they will now also look into maybe turning the development process around a little, because these sidesteps really shouldn't be necessary if you want to get a more significant feature release out the door. Oh, and consider bumping up the version number a bit more than just 0.0.1, because the list of new features definitely warrants it ;)
User avatar
Anubis_The_Jackal
Registered User
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2003 9:59 am

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by Anubis_The_Jackal »

There are mods to deal with quick reply... so as long as this does not come into conflict with the Evil Quick Reply Mod, I won't be bothered.

Additionally I hope to see a code change package released at the same time as the auto updater and patch files, because this is a 'feature' release after all.
PHPBB since 03
Jackuul Empire-MSRP V
arod-1
Registered User
Posts: 1327
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:33 pm

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by arod-1 »

Eelke wrote:(it is funny, though, how people are completely on board with the development team abandoning one "universal truth" of the community, with point releases being feature frozen, and on the other hand are presenting another of those "universal truths" as being just that, namely "phpBB follows the Linux versioning scheme" - which, in truth has never lead to a clear public result, because 2.2 would have been the first release to show this policy, which, as we all know, turned into 3.0. I think the development team has just demonstrated they are actually quite open minded towards dropping those "universal truths").
i do not know how well you are familiar with the linux kernel model.
personally, i think this model works very well for the linux kernel.
Wikipedia on linux kernel wrote: Version numbering

The Linux kernel has had three different numbering schemes.

Early versions:

* The first version of the kernel was 0.01. This was followed by 0.02, 0.03, 0.10, 0.11, 0.12 (the first GPL version), 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99 and then 1.0.[33] From 0.95 on there were many patch releases between versions.

The old scheme (after 1.0 and prior to version 2.6):

* The A number denotes the kernel version. It is rarely changed, and only when major changes in the code and the concept of the kernel occur. It has been changed twice in the history of the kernel: In 1994 (version 1.0) and in 1996 (version 2.0).

* The B number denotes the major revision of the kernel
o The kernel used the traditional even-odd system version numbering system.
* The C number indicates the minor revision of the kernel. This number was changed when security patches, bug fixes, new features or drivers were implemented in the kernel.

After the release of 2.6.0 (Dec 2003[34]) it was realized that a much shorter release cycle would be beneficial. Since then:

* A and B are largely irrelevant

* C is the version of the kernel

* D counts from and bug and security fixes (only) to the C version (all development occurs on release candidates—'rc')

A D number first occurred when a grave error, which required immediate fixing, was encountered in 2.6.8's NFS code. However, there were not enough other changes to legitimize the release of a new minor revision (which would have been 2.6.9). So, 2.6.8.1 was released, with the only change being the fix of that error. With 2.6.11, this was adopted as the new official versioning policy. Some bug-fixes and security patches are back-ported to released kernels and managed by the fourth, D number. Development only occurs under the C number.

Also, sometimes after the version there will be some more letters such as 'rc1' or 'mm2'. The 'rc' refers to release candidate and indicates a non-official pre-release. Other letters are usually (but not always) the initials of a person. This indicates a development branch of the kernel by that person. e.g. ck stands for Con Kolivas, ac stands for Alan Cox, whereas mm stood for Andrew Morton. Sometimes, the letters are related to the primary development area of the branch the kernel is built from, for example, wl indicates a wireless networking test build. Also, distributors may have different numbering systems for their own versions (appended to the official numbering, at least to C) and for back-ports to their "Enterprise" (ie, old versions) of Linux.

Image

it is clear to anyone that works with linux that the kernel project have long since abandoned the "bug fix minor release/feature major release" model, and is mixing bug fixes and new features with each new release, with the addition of "emergency show-stopper fix" release thrown in whenever deemed necessary.
i think this model works much better than the idea that a project can and should stay feature frozen for years.

phpbb 2.0 was different: the first 2.0.x version which justified the "Gold" title was 2.0.14.
in hindsight, versions 2.0.0 through 2.0.13 were no more than glorified release candidates.
with 3.0 the team did a much much better job as far as software quality is concerned, and 3.0.0 proudly deserved the "gold" designation.
under any reasonable release scheme, 3.2 would not come any earlier than 2-3 years after 3.0 (and according to acyd, "at least 4").
IMO, staying "feature frozen" for >3 years is a project suicide, not only because of competition, but also because you can't expect to keep a live and vibrant community and development team excited for 3 years without any enhancement to the product. (some projects are like that: emacs, perl, and others, but if you look at those projects you'll find a mature product that is perceived by its community as "near perfect", and by the rest of the world as "mostly dead")

the current scheme of having a minor release every 6 months, with both fixes and new functionality, getting frozen ~2 months before actual release and having 2-4 rc pre-releases seems to be working fine.
the only thing i would change is reflecting this de facto development process in the repository: branch 3.0.6 out of 3.0.0 2 months before the release. this is a minor detail, though, and i wouldn't even mention it if the discussion would not deviate to the "linux kernel numbering scheme".
standard disclaimer:
backup your db and files before you do anything.
absolutely no guarantee.
if you do what i advise and it blows in your face, all you'll hear from me is: "ah... sorry, i guess"
SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by SamG »

arod-1 wrote:IMO, staying "feature frozen" for >3 years is a project suicide...
Again, for clarity's sake: No one is suggesting otherwise. No one is advocating a feature frozen product for three or four years. Nothing about the old method of phpBB versioning requires any such thing. phpBB 2.2 was not conceived in the beginning to be a long, drawn out affair; development was already begun before the release of 2.0. It was to be a backward-compatible feature release available for public consumption in a year or so, if memory serves, from the time of 2.0 release.

So to be honest, this POV has no place in the conversation, since nobody wants a repeat of 2.2/3.0, nor is anybody advocating such a thing. I spent long hours defending the project during those dark days. I have zero interest in going through that experience again.
We should talk less, and say more.
arod-1
Registered User
Posts: 1327
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:33 pm

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by arod-1 »

my point was that the model of bug-fix-only minor releases together with less-frequent featurefull major-releases seems ideal in theory, but very rarely works in practice, and was abandoned, e.g. by the linux-kernel project.
i mentioned it in a response to Eelke who seemed to say (although it is perfectly possible that i simply did not understood correctly) something like "Hey, remember that we said we use the linux-kernel numbering scheme! featurefull minor release is a no-no".

you seem to suggest ~3 months bug-fix minor release cycle, and ~1/year major release feature cycle (my interpretation: you did not actually quote numbers). in my experience this is not workable in practice. the compromise of much slower major release cycle (with the corollary of "yes, some features will creep into minor releases") is more common and more practical, IMO, and is what the linux kernel and other projects gravitated to.
Briani
Registered User
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:30 pm

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by Briani »

Wow recaptcha Like vBulletin cool
User avatar
A_O_C
Registered User
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:26 pm
Location: phpbb_

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by A_O_C »

Eelke wrote:because 2.2... turned into 3.0
You do realize that it became 3.0.x because backwards compatibility is impossible.
Wikipedia on linux kernel wrote: Version numbering

The A number denotes the [major] version. It is rarely changed, and only when major changes in the code... occur.




* i changed "kernel" to "major" to reflect phpBB
SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Re: Discuss: Blog post about phpBB 3.0.6 plans

Post by SamG »

Sigh. I happily concede that what the phpBB developers are doing now is more consistent the Linux kernel model than what we had before. I'm aware that the Linux kernel and software apps built by Linux-oriented communities are not doing what I'm suggesting. I even use them, and without comment on the version numbers.

But I never did think the Linux kernel inherently the best model for versioning consumer software. And I see no reason why a consumer-oriented model won't work in practice, since it has and does. It's benefit is simply giving the general public an indicator of when something has significantly new features and when it doesn't. It gives phpBB consumers clearer choice-points, rather than "I'll give you one major, entirely new feature for every three important bug fixes, take it or leave it."

I understand, too, the violence consumer software has done to the credibility of versioning, just for the record.

The debate over the best model or the best procedure could go on forever, and I really am not that committed to my own point of view, as I've already mentioned, to be interested in engaging it even half that long. :) So long as I've achieved clarity in a topic that wasn't intended to gather in my feedback in the first place, I'm happy. :mrgreen:
We should talk less, and say more.
Post Reply

Return to “phpBB Discussion”