Suggestion in relation to implementing the possibility of the change of name of the motif along with replies
Hi, I have such a suggestion, will be good if there was a possibility thanks to which the possibility of the change of name of the motif which has would be from a few to a dozen sides.
I mean it, that if the motif is called let us say; AAAA and there are dozen replies to this motif, it is by hand changing the name of the main topic is simple, but if only to change
all names of the motif as replies it is already tiring. I mean such a function which this modification has: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=3167
which it is possible to change all titles in the motif at once, I would like that such a possibility is appear in SMF 2.0x it is much-needed option. Somebody can write, use this modification, alright but such a possibility would be useful in SMF 2.0x.
I am sorry... what you just said seems very confused
What is a motif?
Why would the ability to change the title of all messages in a thread need to be a feature? I would argue that it already exists as a mod andonly has 989 downloads in over 2 years... Not something that is in high demand.
QuoteWhat is a motif?
I mean topic.
I'm sorry that I wrote it somehow complicating, but I just mean such an option, thanks to which it would be possible to change the title of all news on the topic it is useful option because sometimes a topic has a dozen sides and suddenly have to change the name of topic, let's say, that before some announcement of something, the subject was called somehow, and after the announcement needs to change titles, because however there is a mistake in the name of topic. Alright, I just want to give such a suggestion, in my opinion such an option would be useful in SMF.
Try this mod
Change all Subjects (http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1165)
Quote from: Kindred on September 16, 2013, 12:48:33 PM
Why would the ability to change the title of all messages in a thread need to be a feature? I would argue that it already exists as a mod and only has 989 downloads in over 2 years... Not something that is in high demand.
Eh, I have a better suggestion: stop storing the name inside every message, just store it once for the topic as a whole and be done with it. The database saving would be considerable and it would make a number of things faster whilst decluttering the layout in the process - and make this an irrelevant problem in the process
Arantor... I can see both sides of THAT argument.
For the most part, people don't change the title... however, there cases where the title of each post in a thread is actually different...
I've seen it, I've never understood *why* it's necessary, except for the vague argument attached to when threads are merged. And yet other software that does it this way doesn't generate questions about 'how do I have separate titles'
Seriously, look around the other software and see what they're doing - both IPB and XenForo (at *least*) do it this way and a perusal of their forums does not suggest a strong backlash. Yes, there's an argument but it's not a strong argument as far as I can tell. If anything, the improved performance is even more of an argument for doing it than the keeping it streamlined/decluttered argument.
yes, the performance is indeed an argument for the change...
If you really wanted to go down that route, also duplicate the time of last post in the topics table, then you could have the board index and message index not making a join to the messages table at all. They'd both be faster that way. (The only reason the board index and message index call upon the messages table is to get subject and posting time, everything else can be taken from the topics table and members table, and the member ids in question are already in the topics table)
TopicRenamer is changing the name of the main post and the reply, removing Re: (reply) and it's very strange. Author this modification from 2012 isn't active on the forum, so that he isn't corrects this modification, that's why I think, that such an option would be useful in SMF, thanks to which it is possible to change the name of topic and reply without removing Re:
If you disagree with it's nothing, topicrenamer is ok but has a defect which is removing the Re: (reply).
Issues with mods are not the subject of discussion here.
All right, I answered previous messages, I think that is such a option cause it not has to be the modification is needed in SMF.
I can tell you now that it will not change in 2.1 but might for 3.0.
It's a long way to smf 3.0, so for this option will be wait few years.
Complain all you like but that is how it is. I have enough to do for 2.1 without adding any more features.
I'm not Complain, I think it's ok, that I write my views in relation to SMF and I give a suggestions to the entry a curious options, I as user SMF for many years just need such a function, for these all years I changed every title of topic and reply by hand, even the topic had 100 sides! Therefore understand my suggestion. If it will be in 3.0 it's ok, I just see, that someone who know it, should correct the mentioned above modification, which remove (Re:) and that's all, that modification is good, just has a defect. That's all from me, thanks for the conversation.
but that's the thing... you keep going on about it, which does after the third time sound like a complaint...
Actually I found the option for changing the title of the topic and titles of the reply in SMF 2x
There is such possibility, entering the option: Move the topic is option to mark: Change title of topic > Change title of every message / And it is really good option, but to change title of topic additionally this topic have to move to other section and then this topic has changed title and title of reply, but have to move back this topic to first section. So this option is in SMF just can improve it, to be a a separate option rather than an option in the option: Move the topic. I think, that there isn't lot of trouble in order to introduce such a function if this function is already done, just should do the copy of this option and set it individually.
except that you are wrong. It is not nearly a simple as you seem to think.
What you mean?
I mean exactly what I said.
Quote from: Kindred on February 04, 2014, 07:20:13 AM
It is not nearly as simple as you seem to think.
I understand what you wrote, but I wrote you what is difficult to introduce such a option?
we can't just reuse the code that you point out.
All right, one time you think about introducing such a function, really this function is needed.
Quote from: Arantor on January 26, 2014, 05:52:26 PM
but that's the thing... you keep going on about it, which does after the third time sound like a complaint...
I think it's up to 5 times now, lol.
@rimh101 You will not see this feature in 2.0(current version) or 2.1(upcoming version). Constantly asking for it will not change anything. Arantor is stubborn :P and I agree with him.
SMF 2.1 has way too many problems right now(mostly inherited). So much in fact that it even kinda feels discouraging to work on it, because you bust your butt and feel like your not getting anywhere, and that equals getting burned out(IMO). I feel bad for the developers and wish I could help, but I just end up getting in the way. It makes one wonder if we should skip 2.1 and jump straight to 3.0, but then 3.0 is even further away than 2.1 and I think the SMF community needs something before the end of the year to keep it's faith in it. More features equals more time.
QuoteSMF 2.1 has way too many problems right now(mostly inherited). So much in fact that it even kinda feels discouraging to work on it, because you bust your butt and feel like your not getting anywhere, and that equals getting burned out(IMO). I feel bad for the developers and wish I could help, but I just end up getting in the way. It makes one wonder if we should skip 2.1 and jump straight to 3.0, but then 3.0 is even further away than 2.1 and I think the SMF community needs something before the end of the year to keep it's faith in it. More features equals more time.
You have no idea how accurate this is.