Topic: End of life of SMF 1.0

[GravuTrad]

It was time. Thank for this information Norv.

[Joomlamz]

Thank for this information
Done

[weekend camper]

Wow, hard to believe its been that long already since 1.0x.

Kudos to the past and present team members for supporting it this long.

[Owdy]

Good.

[MrPhil]

You know what's going to happen now... word is going to spread that SMF 1 is end of life, confusing and panicking everyone running on 1.1. I would suggest that in any announcement or posting regarding this that you always say 1.0.x, rather than 1.0, to make it absolutely clear that it's not all of SMF 1 that's going away. If you don't, stupid/careless people will drop the ".0" part of it (after all, we learned in math class that 1 == 1.0, right?).

[N. N.]

MrPhil, I actually expect that some confusions may happen no matter how well we explain it. Which is why the wording and even formatting of the announcement, the wiki pages, and other details. If they're not enough, I think that, sure, we can continue to refer to it as 1.0.x, as additional care (although I think I've seen references meant to 1.1.x written as 1.0.x, too, I'm afraid). I have actually intently postponed this announcement, the start of the 1.0.x end of life timeline, to long after 2.0 release, for the same reason. There were proposals to start making this step then or around that time, but IMHO that would have likely been much more confusing: back then people were understandably wondering anyway what changes for older versions, and there were also some problems (i.e. there was an issue on the mod site accepting submissions) that we have fixed meanwhile. I think the probability of confusions between the old 1.0.x and 1.1.x would have been much higher, than today.
In addition, meanwhile we have also released patches to the SMF community for all 3 versions in current development support. (1.0.22, 1.1.16, 2.0.2)

IMHO, part of the cause of confusion is that people may have forgotten 1.0.x even exists, if they knew it at all, for years. That's a fact which makes quite unavoidable a number of confusions. Strangely enough, it means that the precise fact that it's not popularized at all for a long time, is not helping.   (it's not even mentioned on the downloads page for years, although we're always continued to patch it too, and it is present on the patches page.)
Perhaps it would actually help if all versions, 1.0.x, 1.1.x, and 2.0.x, are mentioned on the main downloads page, at least until December 2012, the actual EOL of 1.0.x.

[agridoc]

I mentioned a TimeLine for SMF after I had explained in another place that 1.0 is different than 1.1, my answer in better format

Dec. 2004	: SMF 1.0 Final
Dec. 2006	: SMF 1.1 Final	, 2 years after 1.0 Final.
June 2011	: SMF 2.0 Final	, four and a half years after 1.1 Final and just nine monts ago.

As there is no yet any public Beta version of next SMF version, support for SMF 1.1x will continue for quite some years.
It's true that there was confusion in persons with experience.

[MrPhil]

I appreciate that people who have been around for a while know the difference between 1.0.x and 1.1.x, and that the former is EOL. However, unless you're very careful in how you designate it, (e.g., "1.1x" in just the previous post), there will be untold confusion between the two. Considering that most people just say "1.x" or "1.1x" and are very sloppy about whether they mean 1.0.x or 1.1.x, I think it behooves official SMF pronouncements to make it very clear that it's the 1.0.x branch that's EOL.

[青山 素子]

I think it behooves official SMF pronouncements to make it very clear that it's the 1.0.x branch that's EOL.

I thought the original post made it quite clear. You're never going to get around the fact that some people just won't read or are stupid.

[Fustrate]

I think it behooves official SMF pronouncements to make it very clear that it's the 1.0.x branch that's EOL.

I thought the original post made it quite clear. You're never going to get around the fact that some people just won't read or are stupid.

On top of that, you'll never avoid the reality that people just won't read or are stupid.

[agridoc]

I thought the original post made it quite clear. You're never going to get around the fact that some people just won't read or are stupid.

That's rather too much. I have seen clever people be confused. I believe a main reason for this confusion is that it took four and a half years to go from 1.1 Final to 2.0 Final. Even more than a year before Dec. 2006 many SMF installations started with some 1.1 RC or Beta version. So, many didn't even know of 1.0x existence or that 1.0 and 1.1 were different versions.

A polite, informational approach is better IMO.

[青山 素子]

I have seen clever people be confused. I believe a main reason for this confusion is that it took four and a half years to go from 1.1 Final to 2.0 Final.

The length of time 2.0 was in development shouldn't have any effect on the ability of people to read. The original post specifically recommended upgrading to the 1.1 or 2.0 series. If people read that and still somehow confuse 1.0 and 1.1 then they would have to try and figure out why there is a recommendation to upgrade to a discontinued version.

Heck, even if 2.0 was released 1 year after 1.1 and the latest SMF was 5.0 or something significantly high, the same people would still be confused. Frankly, I think even if a huge announcement that 1.1 was still being supported was included at twice the size of the other text, you'd still get the same confused people.

Even more than a year before Dec. 2006 many SMF installations started with some 1.1 RC or Beta version. So, many didn't even know of 1.0x existence or that 1.0 and 1.1 were different versions.

And some people will have used vBulletin 3.x and started at that version and not really know (or care) that there was a 1.x and 2.x before that.

A polite, informational approach is better IMO.

Given the original post specifically stated that 1.0.x will be discontinued and that 1.1 and 2.0 are suggested upgrade paths I feel that was more than polite and informative. The first post has now been updated to include bolded areas and a bolded line about 1.1 still being around, but I'm sure there will still be the same people who either don't understand or don't read that will get all confused.

[agridoc]

You are absolutely right about reading, "too much" was for "stupid".

It's a fact that most will see the title and might give only a glimpse at the introductory message. It's the same for headings in newspapers and banners or marquee text in TV news. They can be occasionally or intensionally misleading. This fact must be considered.

A title rename from "End of life of SMF 1.0" to something like "End of life of SMF 1.0 - SMF 1.1 support continues" might prevent quite some confusion. Not all but most. A pleonasm maybe but might be useful.

[青山 素子]

A title rename from "End of life of SMF 1.0" to something like "End of life of SMF 1.0 - SMF 1.1 support continues" might prevent quite some confusion. Not all but most. A pleonasm maybe but might be useful.

At that point, you're going to be writing paragraph-long topic titles and people won't read those either.

[N. N.]

I think both points are right, if I may interject.

motoko,
Indeed, I admit I would be a little wary to change the official announcement too much, to the limit of informality. Perhaps there are other ways to address, even better, the expected amount of confusion. (I really think a certain confusion is understandable considering the context).

agridoc,
Where do you think a simplified timeline like the one you suggested would be better placed? We could do it in the wiki, not sure if it will have enough visibility though. If you'd like, please feel free to make your suggested timeline as a page in the wiki, and let me know where it might be, in addition, welcome as content of a page on the site.
Some location very easy to find, I'd think, to be able to be both found by people and pointed out by us when needed.

[agridoc]

Maybe a SMF versions Timeline is something for the Docs Team. I don't believe is something that is needed but something that would be good to have.

As I have written TimeLine is something for the Docs Team. As I see it, in About SMF a comment and a link for the TimeLine page.

The TimeLine page, again as I see it, might be added either as a Navigation option in About SMF or in SMF Wiki in Miscellaneous.

About making it, to be honest, I rather prefer to give my two cents with something like How to convert to UTF-8. However, if accepted and a discussion is started by the Docs Team I will try to be useful, if I can.

[Doctor Deejay]

I think this is very good news. Great news, team!

[AngelinaBelle]

Thanks for this announcement, N.N.

It is always difficult to know the BEST way to explain something like this without confusing people.
I hope we will be able to help people understand that "1 point zero" versions are being declared obsolete, while "1 point 1" versions will continue to be supported.

This is a nice indicator that our development team is turning its attention to future versions. I am really looking forward to it!

[karlbenson]

SMF1.0 may have been ahead of its time.  But sadly now it needs to follow IE6 into the long grass.

[MrPhil]

A title rename from "End of life of SMF 1.0" to something like "End of life of SMF 1.0 - SMF 1.1 support continues" might prevent quite some confusion.

On the contrary, the first time I read that, it sounded like "End of life for SMF 1.0 through SMF 1.1"! Be very careful with your wording. Thus my earlier suggestion for just saying "1.0.x" and leaving it at that.