Sortable Packages (and Installed Time)

[Arantor]

butchs, you could just do what this mod did and use the contents of the smf_log_packages table (which I think the SMF team came up with before you )

If you decide to write a new one from fresh that doesn't reuse any code from here, you can do what the hell you like with it. It's only when people reuse my code without permission that I get pissed.

[butchs]

Actually, though out of character, in this case I prefer the old fashioned manual way.  By assigning numbers to my mods before I install them I know exactly what order to uninstall and the install them when upgrading.  It saves me the aggravation of having to wait for the index to re-load and then having to hit the date again just to get it to list the newest mod on top.  I am too impatient for that. Faster and simpler is sometimes better.   

I hope my manual number scheme is not conflicting with "smf_log_packages" copyrights?  I attached a snapshot of what I am doing just in case they want me to cease and desist... 

[live627]

Why would they issue a C&D over that?

[Arantor]

Considering that the numbering is automatic in the log table since it's an auto-increment field, doing it manually is actually kind of stupid since you're duplicating work...

[butchs]

Sorting is sooooo much easier that waiting for the code to implement.  Come on, the original version sorts the opposite direction than anyone will ever need just because the author does not have enough imagination or possibly skill to be able to change ascending to descending.  Bla... I rather do it manually!

[Arantor]

You referring to me there as having a lack of skill? If there's any laziness on my part there it's almost certainly down to avoiding making too many edits to the system since more edits invariably means more support hassle.

[Plutuss]

I came here to thank the mod author, but the nasty treatment of the helpful Russian member is a disgrace. I got a headache witnessing the unpleasantness. Good grief!

[live627]

Was it something I did?

[Arantor]

I came here to thank the mod author, but the nasty treatment of the helpful Russian member is a disgrace. I got a headache witnessing the unpleasantness. Good grief!

So if I came to your forum, copied the work and posted it somewhere else, you'd be happy with that?

[Plutuss]

I came here to thank the mod author, but the nasty treatment of the helpful Russian member is a disgrace. I got a headache witnessing the unpleasantness. Good grief!

So if I came to your forum, copied the work and posted it somewhere else, you'd be happy with that?

Posted 'somewhere else' wouldn't be analagous to posting it in its own thread. I would be happy, if someone were to take time from their day to assist me in good faith, even if the assistance were unsolicited. How boring - and more gruesome - life would be otherwise! If it were not acceptable, then one should be at least maintain a polite standard of civilised discourse if one aims to be a good person. Let us use this opportunity to become more compassionate - no one who has contributed as much as you have to this volounteer project could truly be without compassion. So thank you for the good works that you have done, and how nice it would be if you were to offer an apology to the well-intentioned Russian gentleman.

[Arantor]

I don't see why I should offer an apology to someone who took my work, modified it and redistributed it without so much as asking me first. You want polite standards, how about asking someone before you modify their hard work?

[Garou]

You know it would be simple for someone to pop up some zipped up malware an make it look like a packaged mod. Worse yet an update that may contain a security risk whether the person posting it meant to include it or not. That's one of the first and most important reasons one should never just pop or download and use a modified file like that.

Second it is very easy for an author to feel disrespect and offended for not being asked. What you do with something on your own site is one thing but redistribution like that is wrong. 

For instance say you made some modification for Windows, Microsoft probably wouldn't complain if you packaged up your changes as a patch or posted instructions on how to modify so others could do it themselves. Now if you packed up your changes with an original version of Windows and Microsoft would sue you into oblivion. This isn't any different.

Personally I would love to see a system here at SMF for taking over mods that are no longer supported, especially when an author can not be reached and the mod has become fairly popular. There are a few cases out there where an author hasn't even logged into SMF for over a year or better, their known websites have been taken down and or URLs have expired, e-mails, PMs, and IM's trying to contact them have gone either ignored, or bounce back as non-existent. In fact there is one that I am almost quite certain the author has passed away. It seems like such a damn shame that someone else can not take up the chalice and continue their work in a more simple manner.

If you look around the SMF site especially with all the currently unsupported mods, you will see where others share what they did to update a mod to make it work for themselves. It looks a lot like the manual install instruction for any mod. Example...

Find in some file

Code Select Expand

The original code

Replace with

Code Select Expand

Your changes

That way everyone can see, review, and install your work if they want. Ive never seen a complaint about that and many authors will gladly take that code and incorporate it into the mod along with acknowledging you in the credits or change log for your work.

Sure it might take a little more work for a site manager to implement the code on their site in the meantime but there is an accepted way to contribute if you really wish. If those that truly want to be helpful would follow the commonly accepted practices rather then just complaining about the removal of an unauthorized package, everyone would be more content.

[dougiefresh]

Hi, I would like to thank the mod author.  I've used it on a previous version of SMF, almost with glee, as it makes figuring out the order the packages were installed in much easier.....  However, it doesn't work on 2.0 RC5.  I have read the discussion before this posting....  My question (and I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way) is will the mod be updated for 2.0 RC5?  Thanks!

[Arantor]

Not by its original author, no. Its current maintainer... maybe.

The reason it doesn't work on RC5 is because the bugs I originally fixed in this mod (i.e. template bugs) have since been properly fixed.

[dougiefresh]

Who would the current maintainer be?  And where can I find the topic (if one exists)?  Thank you!

[Arantor]

Who would the current maintainer be?  And where can I find the topic (if one exists)?  Thank you!

Current maintainer: Robbo_ as indicated by the fact he is the 'author' of the first post.

Any topic about the matter would be this topic; the bugs corrected in the Packages template were to do with misspaced and mismatched <td>/<th> tags that I fixed when I first released the mod; the team fixed them afterwards.

You can get an updated version from http://dev.live627.com/ at a cost of $12, though that also covers any updates and support for the next year.

[butchs]

WOW? How much will the fork cost? 

[Arantor]

Hang on, where did I say *I* was charging anything? Clue's in the name... live627.com... I'm not charging anything for anything at this point in time - I just handed over almost all my mods to Live and told him that he could sell them if he wanted. That way I got rid of any ongoing support issues so I could concentrate on working on the fork.

[butchs]

I apologize...  That was a mean thing to say.  I must have listened to too many Charlie Sheen interviews...   

[Arantor]

It wasn't particularly mean at all, really, is all good