Delete the smf 2.1 download on smf page

[albertlast]

It's hearts everytime when I read some person take the time
to test the smf 2.1 and then relealize he take smf 2.1 beta2.
He wasted his time to find issues which are already fixed.

Alternative solution would be to ref directly to smf 2.1 url from github.
But every snapshot version is wast of time on user and support side.

PS: Antes mention i should past this topic here,
orginal came it's from github: github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1/issues/3459

short recap from github:
illori: the new packages will be released soon
albertlast: a new packages will be old after some days/weeks again
antes: place a daily build on smf page (i like the idea)

[Arantor]

The problem with a daily build is that you'd have to manually produce it and tag it with the day's date so users have some idea what they're working on. Especially since the upgrade process is partially broken for updating from later beta phase versions.

The reality is most users just shouldn't be touching 2.1 at all and I'm not sure it should be on the download page, period, until RC phase.

[lurkalot]

The reality is most users just shouldn't be touching 2.1 at all and I'm not sure it should be on the download page, period, until RC phase.

Totally agree.  The version on the download page is out of date straight away, and if anyone asks anything about issues they're having with it they are told they should download the latest GitHub version. So really no point having it on the downloads page.

Oh, and I forgot to say this before. Welcome back Arantor, great to see you posting on a regular basis again.

[albertlast]

I see no post how is again this idea.
So will someone do it?

[Illori]

no we will not be removing the package from the download page.

[albertlast]

But when you write text like this
"why are you using the beta? it is beta for a reason. also if you are using the beta you should be using the version on github."
Than it doesn't look so that the packages bring any benefit to you.

[Kindred]

Well, if you are using a beta version, with all the warnings, it is generally assumed that you have a clue as to how betas work...

[Shambles]

I believe the issue here is that there appears to be two sources of the Beta download, one of which you don't recommend members to use, so why is it advertised and available, I wonder?

[Illori]

we dont recommend anyone to use SMF 2.1 unless it is a test site or they know how to apply patches manually or db queries to their database.

[LiroyvH]

We don't recommend using either in a production environment... However, you can run whichever version you like in a test environment.
We put the official beta releases (milestones, basically.) on the downloads page with a fair warning, so that people who are interested in it can test it, look at it, feel it and perhaps already have a few looks at the code to for example see how they can modify it to their wishes.
People ignoring the big fat red warning not to use it in production, shouldn't be the cause for us to hide it from those who want to test; and have a chance to show off our new product line and allow people to easily test drive it.

[Shambles]

Just a thought... possibly put a date-last-updated (and "Beta" suffix) on the download page? Or draw attention to Kindred's stickied download topic?

Might help avoid the confusion.

[Kindred]

unfortunately, it's not quite that easy, since the downloads page is populated with the downloads and descriptions by an automated script

[albertlast]

What are the intention behind this download?
give the user a productive forum:no
help the development: no

So what are the intention of this and there are meet?

"People ignoring the big fat red warning not to use it in production, shouldn't be the cause for us to hide it from those who want to test; and have a chance to show off our new product line and allow people to easily test drive it."
yeah some of the ingore, but someother want help the development and try this version,
and this is red text saying "this is THE development version" from where should the user know that is not the development version.

[Wellwisher]

Albertlast has a point admins. There are people from different countries who don't understand english so they'll download 2.1 assuming it's the latest build and fix bugs, only to find out GH has resolved those issues already.
May be better if SMF.org removes 2.1 download all together and instead, adds a "redirect icon" or something so users are constantly pointed to the latest GH repo. 

[Kindred]

unfortunately, it's not quite that easy, since the downloads page is populated with the downloads and descriptions by an automated script

[lurkalot]

We don't recommend using either in a production environment... However, you can run whichever version you like in a test environment.
We put the official beta releases (milestones, basically.) on the downloads page with a fair warning, so that people who are interested in it can test it, look at it, feel it and perhaps already have a few looks at the code to for example see how they can modify it to their wishes.
People ignoring the big fat red warning not to use it in production, shouldn't be the cause for us to hide it from those who want to test; and have a chance to show off our new product line and allow people to easily test drive it.

I agree with a most of what you're saying.  Ok so have the full install package there for people to play with, but even then it's out of date and a lot has changed since that upload was made available. so it's not worth them trying to give feedback or report bugs on.  Its just there to get a rough idea of what the finished product will loo like.

But why is the Large upgrade package also available, isn't that just tempting people to upgrade their existing sites?

[Illori]

we do need some tests of upgrades. some people do make a copy of their live site and run the upgrade. if they run into issues they report them so we can fix them.

[albertlast]

we do need some tests of upgrades. some people do make a copy of their live site and run the upgrade. if they run into issues they report them so we can fix them.

We do need test upgrade with the github version,
but not from the packed version which is presented here.
This is the reason why i said,
this version didn't support the development.

[Kindred]

Well, it did for a little while...

[albertlast]

Well...
Why got smf 2.1 upgrade process since now problem with the converting the database from latin/etc to unicode?

The beta2 download got a upgrade_2-1_mysql.sql with loc ~1,7k,
the github version got 2,4k.

-->any feedback based on the download smf download doesn't help the development

An alternative solution would be to place a text file in the 2.1 download with the guide how to download github version and place the right file on right place
and throw out the rest of the files in 2.1 download.