The best way to get involved is to get involved

xable · 2008-12-24 00:47:25

MattF wrote:

The point being made, however, is that there are quite a few people, (myself included), who have absolutely no intention of running 1.3* within the foreseeable future. To those, 1.2* is far more important.

I do understand that.

Allow me to put my point another way as it doesn`t seem to have come accross...

Once 1.3 is stable and there are a good selection of plugins/skins to choose from, most people will be happy to switch. Working on 1.2 instead of 1.3 to get it to that stage (sooner rather than later) is a step backwards.

For those who don`t want to switch at and time, further developent on 1.2 would be good, if the changes benefited the individual enough. However, it just serves to delay 1.3 further and make upgrading less appealing/necessairy.

MattF · 2008-12-24 08:06:43

I caught the gist of what you meant earlier. However, you're still working on the assumption that most people will want to upgrade to 1.3*. Working on 1.2* does not inconvenience 1.3* in any way or form. NOT working further on 1.2* causes far more inconvenience for some, and may well be the case for quite a long time to come.

Franz · 2008-12-24 13:44:24

Strofanto wrote:

Read beyond Paul's words and you'll find a Webmaster fully understandable point of view about trac. HTML and CSS often need small changed, either aesthetic either functional, there's no point in compulsively uploading anything you made if you have to test, rework, change, fix, adjust (got me?) and so on.

Actually, wouldn't that have been the perfect opportunity for a branch? (PunBB did that, and in my eyes, it was a good idea...)
That's what versioning systems are made for... so that devs don't have to wait for other devs to complete their work before they can go on

Last edited by Franz (2008-12-24 13:47:09)

Strofanto · 2008-12-24 13:53:53

lie2815 wrote:

Strofanto wrote:
Read beyond Paul's words and you'll find a Webmaster fully understandable point of view about trac. HTML and CSS often need small changed, either aesthetic either functional, there's no point in compulsively uploading anything you made if you have to test, rework, change, fix, adjust (got me?) and so on.
Actually, wouldn't that have been the perfect opportunity for a branch? (PunBB did that, and in my eyes, it was a good idea...)
That's what versioning systems are made for... so that devs don't have to wait for other devs to complete their work before they can go on

Probably so, but who would have started the branch? us two? do we have the skills to code a forum? I don't for sure, despite I'd love to.

MattF · 2008-12-27 13:52:22

Smarty's, any further input on this subject as to the specifics of what you're considering as viable options? The Flux future thread seems to be becoming a tad bogged down with regards to 1.2* specifically.

Smartys · 2008-12-27 13:55:19

Specifics? I feel like I already mentioned them

Smartys wrote:

The proposal is for a fork of 1.2. The idea is to support 1.2 for the many people who can not or will not upgrade to 1.3 while also developing a more modern version of 1.2 (with more modern 1.3 features like UTF-8 support without major code structure/markup changes).
The intention is not to complete with FluxBB but to complement it. If this works out, a lot of the pressure will be taken off of Paul and the other developers.

It's the holidays, so I don't expect anything to be set up (eg: a website for the project) before early January at the earliest.

MattF · 2008-12-27 14:01:21

Smartys wrote:

Specifics? I feel like I already mentioned them
Smartys wrote:
The proposal is for a fork of 1.2. The idea is to support 1.2 for the many people who can not or will not upgrade to 1.3 while also developing a more modern version of 1.2 (with more modern 1.3 features like UTF-8 support without major code structure/markup changes).
The intention is not to complete with FluxBB but to complement it. If this works out, a lot of the pressure will be taken off of Paul and the other developers.
It's the holidays, so I don't expect anything to be set up (eg: a website for the project) before early January at the earliest.

Just wanted to check I hadn't misinterpreted what you wrote. I wasn't intending to be asking the obvious, although it appears I did. I was mainly just double checking on the fork part, with you not having updated the thread recently. It's not intended as a prod to rush things, btw, merely just as a clarification. Cheers again.

Smartys · 2008-12-27 14:05:43

LOL, don't worry about it, I was trying to be informative (and your post gave me an excuse to bump this: the FluxBB thread has been getting all the posts recently)

MattF · 2008-12-27 14:36:10

Smartys wrote:

the FluxBB thread has been getting all the posts recently.

I'd noticed that too.

twohawks · 2008-12-27 21:31:12

Smartys, do you see your suggestion as standing apart from what Conner and Elb have proposed in the other thread, or is this a part of (related to) that? I am uncertain if you had this thought coincidentally at the same time as a separate idea, or ??.

To be clear, obviously 'forking' really seems to be a different idea, however, it seems the rest of the spirit of your proposal is mirrored in C&E's proposal that is (or may be) developing in the other thread.

Cheers,

elbekko · 2008-12-27 21:40:23

I have discussed the idea with Smartys before, and I suggested it to Connor as a sort of backup plan to keep FluxBB alive if really necessary. Right now we're just checking with the community to see if that would be feasible.

Smartys · 2008-12-27 23:00:25

twohawks wrote:

Smartys, do you see your suggestion as standing apart from what Conner and Elb have proposed in the other thread, or is this a part of (related to) that? I am uncertain if you had this thought coincidentally at the same time as a separate idea, or ??.

I have had this idea rolling around in my head for quite some time and I have discussed it with the other developers in the past. As the cliche goes, great minds think alike.

twohawks wrote:

To be clear, obviously 'forking' really seems to be a different idea, however, it seems the rest of the spirit of your proposal is mirrored in C&E's proposal that is (or may be) developing in the other thread.

I think the general idea is the same, yes.

Gotipe · 2008-12-28 11:25:27

Whoa. I really have missed a lot of things here.
Well, taken from this threads latest posts, good for the 1.2 (1.4 now?) branch ffs! I like it anyway.
But, what "keep FluxBB alive if really necessary"? It isn't like Flux will die with the 1.3 (2.0?) or?

elbekko · 2008-12-28 12:54:55

As it is now, while we're waiting for 1.3 to be finished, alot of people are leaving, which could eventually lead to FluxBB's death, which would be bad.

Strofanto · 2008-12-28 13:12:32

elbekko wrote:

As it is now, while we're waiting for 1.3 to be finished, alot of people are leaving

Or maybe a lot of people is using PunBB and still checking what's FluxBB status, which doesn't mean they left for good.

vnpenguin · 2008-12-28 13:28:24

elbekko wrote:

As it is now, while we're waiting for 1.3 to be finished, alot of people are leaving, which could eventually lead to FluxBB's death, which would be bad.

I come to FluxBB from 1.2.x PunBB. I don't like to use fluxbb 1.2.* and I can't wait for 1.3-final (when ?), so I live with 1.3-dev r718 and I'm relatively happy with this until now.

I don't like to return again to punbb 1.3.x. But only the God know what will arrive.

Waiting, waiting and waiting for 1.3-final of fluxbb is really boring for me

MattF · 2008-12-28 20:16:19

elbekko wrote:

I have discussed the idea with Smartys before, and I suggested it to Connor as a sort of backup plan to keep FluxBB alive if really necessary. Right now we're just checking with the community to see if that would be feasible.

IMHO, forking seems the best option for the 1.2* branch. Keeping 1.2* as is here as the old stable version and 1.3* as the latest would be less confusing than having both branches in active development here. A fork would cause less confusion, I personally think.

Last edited by MattF (2008-12-28 20:16:40)

Smartys · 2008-12-30 02:31:07

Rather than divide the efforts of the community, I urge everyone to support the FluxBB proposal to create a "true" 1.3 out of the 1.2 branch.

Closed, since I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Forums

#26 2008-12-24 00:47:25

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#27 2008-12-24 08:06:43

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#28 2008-12-24 13:44:24

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#29 2008-12-24 13:53:53

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#30 2008-12-27 13:52:22

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#31 2008-12-27 13:55:19

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#32 2008-12-27 14:01:21

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#33 2008-12-27 14:05:43

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#34 2008-12-27 14:36:10

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#35 2008-12-27 21:31:12

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#36 2008-12-27 21:40:23

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#37 2008-12-27 23:00:25

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#38 2008-12-28 11:25:27

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#39 2008-12-28 12:54:55

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#40 2008-12-28 13:12:32

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#41 2008-12-28 13:28:24

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#42 2008-12-28 20:16:19

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

#43 2008-12-30 02:31:07

Re: The best way to get involved is to get involved

Board footer