You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1 Re: Announcements » The future of FluxBB » 2009-01-30 08:44:24
- Anatoly
Anatoly would you plz
Stay on topic, please.
You are welcome to write to anatoly@punbb.org looking for my personal support.
#2 Re: Announcements » The future of FluxBB » 2009-01-30 08:37:03
- Anatoly
I don't think 2.0 is going to be finished in several years: I would be surprised if it took more than one year to write. I think once 1.4 is tested and released, planning for 2.0 can start in earnest. I think there are more people "on the team" working to plan and develop the software than ever before. I think having a clear roadmap beforehand will lead to better written software that is finished more quickly.
It is a release [1.4] meant to fill a void that formed when all the development efforts focused around 1.3, while 1.2 was left neglected for no good reason.
Agree.
Smarty's 1.4 is a necessary step after 1.2 before the development process may go further in a right way.
#3 Re: FluxBB discussion » The future of FluxBB - Split off » 2009-01-30 07:57:57
- Anatoly
but i want to know this, will punbb use fluxbb 2.0 code.
No. We do not look at FluxBB for codes anymore.
In the words of Anatoly himself...
I was talking about myself personally (and if I would like to say this publicly, I would do it myself). Slavok, Garciat, Utchin and other community members are managing support well, you are welcome too.
Regarding the topic subject: the message of KeyDog makes sense, but I don't think FluxBB should send people to PunBB. The ones who really needs 1.3 will make choice themselves, but Flux and Pun should not be mixed in any way anymore. I mean that people are welcome to come from one project to another or to be present at both. But nor Flux, nor Pun should not officially link/comment/support each other.
#4 Re: FluxBB discussion » Why shouldn't I choose PunBB? » 2008-12-10 09:21:46
- Anatoly
...don't assume because they are official PunBB extensions that they are secure or good quality code
You repeating this as a mantra, though there are no absolutely "secure or good quality" extensions for FluxBB/PunBB at all.
PunBB development team is just doing their best (and you are welcome to make it better). It seems to me that early development release is better then later (soon/never) "prefect" release.
This reflects current difference between PunBB and FluxBB (coming back to topic): PunBB is not perfect (so we have to release 1.3.(p+1) versions), but FluxBB (which seems to be aimed to be ideal) doesn't exist at all (though FluxBB will still have to release 1.3.(f+1) versions when people will (if ever) start to use it in production - the bugs will be found).
I don't mean that FluxBB is going wrong way, but is seems to me that shorter release cycles would speed up development and will help FluxBB to get better feedback and to have more extensions done.
We (both teams) should have kept the markup as simple (close to 1.2) as possible if this delays 1.3 release.
Some bugs present in FluxBB 1.3 beta* are already fixed in PunBB 1.3.*. So FluxBB will always be late from now until the Team will add some "killing feature" (or "killing difference") to the core. "We are more perfect" never was a "killing feature".
I am also disappointed that FluxBB is still not ready. I don't think the problem is that the development is too slow, or that there isn't enough work being done, or anything like that. I think the project bit off more than it could chew when it decided on making huge changes this late in the game. We've had two beta releases, and a beta release is supposed to be of a virtually finished product. So to decide to go back and completely rework elements of the project after it was in Beta 2, so close to being finished, was a big mistake. Large modifications could have been saved for 1.4.
Yes, FluxBB is a free project put together by volunteer effort, and the developers can do anything they want. But the longer it takes, the less useful it becomes. By developing it in the public eye, having this discussion forum, having a downloadable Beta, and saying that there isn't much work left, you are stringing along potential users--and what is the point of that if it's going to be an eternity before a real release? And tossing around the "it will be done when it's done so don't ask" line only alienates people. If you keep going down this road, you will have no users, and all of the effort put into this will have been wasted.
I think the project needs a real leader to stand up, make decisions, and keep the project going...kind of like what Rickard was to the PunBB 1.2 branch.
Absolutely agree.
#5 Re: General discussion » Punbb 1.3 is done » 2008-11-10 19:00:41
- Anatoly
They still have a lot of unfinished tickets sitting there...
Ah... yes... thanks for reminding.
There may be PunBB 1.3.1 very soon.
As soon as security bug will be found.
When Paul has commited all of his code, I suspect that they will release PunBB 1.3.1 with all the updates for the style.
No.
I know why is every developer Russian?
Does somone now Rickard's Email, he should now that Punbb 1.3 is done. And se for himself what Punbb is.
See development team page. All the current developers are Russians.
I've mailed to Rickard.
#6 Re: General discussion » Punbb 1.3 is done » 2008-11-09 16:19:40
- Anatoly
I think they have decided giving up the compatibility between FluxBB & PunBB. They've also waited for FluxBB for long time.
That's it.
#7 Re: General discussion » Punbb rc2 are done » 2008-11-01 12:09:30
- Anatoly
Check your homepage as well.
Fixed too. Thanks.
#8 Re: General discussion » Punbb rc2 are done » 2008-11-01 11:32:13
- Anatoly
THIS makes me sad
Fixed. Thanks.
#9 Re: General discussion » FluxBB reviewed by Forum Software Reviews » 2008-10-31 15:28:43
- Anatoly
Related.
Please note that in 2007, PunBB was sold to a commercial company. Its main developer, Richard Andersson has now stopped the PunBB development, even if PunBB is still released with the GPL License.
Due to these events, FluxBB is now the official fork of PunBB.
I'm wondering for the meaning of even in "even if PunBB is still released with the GPL License".
PunBB will remain under GPL in any way. And Ricard has left PunBB for personal reasons only (not related with the devs/company/license...).
And what is an "official fork"? Are there unofficial ones? Who approves GPL forks? :-)
Both forums live, grow and have their devs and communities.
And that is good.
#10 Re: General discussion » FluxBB reviewed by Forum Software Reviews » 2008-10-31 15:18:27
- Anatoly
In any case, thank you for developing an alternative to the commercial PunBB.
Very funny.
:-)
#11 Re: FluxBB discussion » "based on code copyright (C) 2002-2008 PunBB.org" removal » 2008-10-22 11:25:22
- Anatoly
I think the best idea is to just follow GPL.
OK. I forget it.
#12 Re: FluxBB discussion » "based on code copyright (C) 2002-2008 PunBB.org" removal » 2008-10-22 08:06:52
- Anatoly
Even if we did want to do this, I'm not sure we can just agree to it and it be OK under GPL
Informer.com as PunBB copyright holder and FluxBB team as FluxBB copyright holder may conclude an agreement between each other.
GPL may be overridden by the copyright holder's permission (e.g. commercial use without opening the codes and s.o.).
also PunBB is still taking code from FluxBB, so I don't see how we can agree to let PunBB do that in the future as we don't know what is going to happen.
PunBB is taking code from FluxBB to make PunBB 1.3 compatible to FluxBB 1.3 at the extensions level. We have no plans to adopt any of the FluxBB codes after 1.3 final release (nevertheless, if we will then, there will be FluxBB copyright stated just there). My proposal is about 1.3 only.
Also this isn't something for the community to decide, the copyright is nothing to do with the community.
Surprised.
Close the topic please if here is nothing to discuss.
Again, I do not assume this is really important question, just an idea. Let's forget it if this looks conflicting.
#13 Re: FluxBB discussion » "based on code copyright (C) 2002-2008 PunBB.org" removal » 2008-10-21 16:34:15
- Anatoly
So you're assuming that Flux is less popular than Pun, or that it will be like that in the future?
I was waiting for this question, though I don't see where do I assume this.
If you really think that this will hurt Flux, let's forget it (and that is why I'm asking this here).
I hope each one of PunBB and FluxBB forums will have their loyal users.
And in fact that is not too important question, I've thought of this proposal just cleaning up the code.
Simple "OK" or "no way" from the Flux devs will be enough to close the discussion.
#14 Re: FluxBB discussion » "based on code copyright (C) 2002-2008 PunBB.org" removal » 2008-10-21 14:50:23
- Anatoly
This should be emailed to the dev team really as its not a community discussion really
Not at all. I suppose the FluxBB community should be agree to accept this.
And I do not know, who is the FluxBB leader now to mail him personally, so I ask all the team as a whole here.
#15 FluxBB discussion » "based on code copyright (C) 2002-2008 PunBB.org" removal » 2008-10-21 12:41:00
- Anatoly
- Replies: 26
I officially propose the agreement to the FluxBB team: PunBB and FluxBB remove the references to each other from the code files, keeping the proper copyright notice in some file included in the forum package.
E.g. we've added the README, containing the lines:
This package and its contents are copyright (C) 2002-2008 PunBB, all rights reserved.
Partially based on code copyright (C) 2008 FluxBB.org.
But we'd like to simplify our code files having just
* @copyright Copyright (C) 2008 PunBB
* @license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPL version 2 or higher
* @package PunBB
instead of
* @copyright Copyright (C) 2008 PunBB, partially based on code copyright (C) 2008 FluxBB.org
* @license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPL version 2 or higher
* @package PunBB
FluxBB may then remove PunBB from their notice to have
* @copyright Copyright (C) 2008 FluxBB.org
* @license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPL version 2 or higher
* @package FluxBB
instead of
* @copyright Copyright (C) 2008 FluxBB.org, based on code copyright (C) 2002-2008 PunBB.org
* @license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPL version 2 or higher
* @package FluxBB
Though you still must keep copyright (c) 2002-2008 PunBB in one of the files in the FluxBB package.
BTW: PunBB.org as copyright holder is incorrect. PunBB is right.
pros:
- Less confusion to the users of both forum engines.
- Less file sizes, less text before code.
- No PunBB promotion in each FluxBB file.
cons:
- No FluxBB promotion in each PunBB file?
#16 Re: FluxBB discussion » Avatar query » 2008-10-21 12:26:41
- Anatoly
Just curious. Is there a specific reason why the avatar code still loops through checking for several filetypes on disk and generating the code if found rather than just entering the complete img tag in the user db when the avatar is uploaded? It's always struck me as a tad weird doing file_exists, getimagesize and such several times when the info could be pulled directly from the db during existing queries, negating the need for all the extra checks. Plus, the filemtime cache setup thing wouldn't be needed due to being able to generate a time prefix or suchlike for the image when it is uploaded.
I've noticed this too and considering caching of all the avatar info (filetype, mtime) in the users table (once per avatar upload/removal).
#17 Re: FluxBB discussion » User posts count » 2008-10-13 10:13:41
- Anatoly
on the other hand, people see number of posts and see that its experienced user in this forum, so this takes the title away from him his posts are pruned, so either way it doesnt matter, because its going in circles.
Agree.
And no one has commented this trick:
Someone may use this by adding and removing the post at once, repeating this 1 000 times: the "number of posts" will be 1 000, having 0 real posts in database.
#18 Re: FluxBB discussion » User posts count » 2008-10-10 11:22:57
- Anatoly
I've always thought the first partly because of pruning but also because somebody could come up with a way of archiving old posts possibly as an extension. You cold of course change the labels to "Total posts made: 1000" and "Posts found available to view: 900" to avoid confusion.
Agree.
Not sure that there should be two fields, but "Posts" should be replaced with kind of "Posts ever made" to make it more clear to novice users.
Thanks to all for opinions.
#19 Re: FluxBB discussion » User posts count » 2008-10-10 07:06:49
- Anatoly
which way is punbb currently using?
PunBB 1.2 and 1.3 currently use the 1-st way.
#20 FluxBB discussion » User posts count » 2008-10-10 06:27:25
- Anatoly
- Replies: 14
That is not very important question, but I'd like to get more user opinions to resolve our dispute here (in PunBB team).
E.g. open Connor's profile and look at Posts: 856.
And compare this to Posts by Connor: Posts found [ 1 to 25 of 628 ].
Now (in 1.2 and in 1.3) 856 is not the real current count of user's posts in the forum, but the number of posts ever sent by user.
If user has posted 10 posts and moderator deleted 5 of them, the "number of posts" will still be 10, but the real count is 5. Someone may use this by adding and removing the post at once, repeating this 1 000 times: the "number of posts" will be 1 000, having 0 real posts in database.
On the other hand, if administrator prunes the topics (by post age) periodically, the users' post counts will decrease then. The number of posts ever written is the measure of users' contribution into the community.
What is your opinion on the correct algorithm of "number of posts" count?
1. Number of posts ever sent.
2. Number of posts currently stored in database.
Thanks.
#21 Re: FluxBB discussion » PunBB and FluxBB Development » 2008-10-10 06:13:43
- Anatoly
Just a notice: now we (PunBB team) have a priority on keeping the FluxBB extension-level compatibility. That is why we mostly follow the FluxBB core changes. I personally even suppose the core is feature-overloaded already and maybe we'll clean some features out before final release.
We have formed our own vision of better PunBB core, but we leave this for PunBB 2.0 yet. And we are not going to start working on new features before 1.3 final released. That is why we mostly result in extensions development.
#22 Re: Feature requests » HTTP 401 and explanation when trying to read a private topic » 2008-10-10 06:06:21
- Anatoly
Agree to Smartys, but due to
Literally 99.9% of users would prefer more concise error messages than a single ambiguous one.
this may be an option or an extension that allows admin to enable the extended explanation:
the page should explain that the topic (post, etc.) he tried to access is private and he is not authorized to read it
But the stronger security should be chosen as default forum behavior.
#23 Re: General discussion » Euro2008 talk » 2008-06-27 08:30:29
- Anatoly
Russia was simply too tired for their power-play IMHO. Anyway, Russia is back!
It was terrible game.
I hope Spain will keep their hot energy and knock-out Germans with their lazy tactics
)
#24 Re: General discussion » Euro2008 talk » 2008-06-25 09:06:17
- Anatoly
In view of Russia's achievements last 6 months, here is one popular ironic joke now: "Let's hurry up starting Third World War while we are so lucky" ![]()
It seems to me possible, that our team can be so inspired that they will not notice good playing of any of their opponents. Just kidding of course ![]()
Last time I've watched their game, Germans were not too impressive. Though I suppose they will win match with Turkey. And we'll see the great final match: Russia-Germany.
Most of all I'm glad for and sure in one thing: these games will be very sightfull and exciting.
#25 Re: FluxBB discussion » Was forking PunBB to FluxBB such a bad idea... » 2008-06-24 12:53:11
- Anatoly
artoodetoo wrote:It is not very polite, isn't it? You have deal with some company, not with Russians. Is it so important for you what nationality are PunBB owners? Are you talk the same when your opponent is Chinese or Afroamerican?
Taken out of context, no, so I understand your point. However, it is just how they have been referred to (and how they've referred to themselves at several points) and it wasn't meant in an offensive way.
Agree.
Paul wrote:Yes, us Brits and Yanks will have to mend our ways.
Shouldn't that be we Welsh, English and Yanks?
![]()
