Of course it can. That's part of the problem. The fact that nothing ever seems to happen without some kind of issue flaring up to prompt some kind of action. See point about *transparency*.
I shouldn't have to make inferences about this stuff. This is one of the reasons SMF finds it so hard to recruit developers, because no-one wants to trust it, and with good reason given what's happened before - once they get behind The Wall, they see how it really is, how it's been for years.
I can only speculate that this is the big reason behind keeping things 'under wraps'.
Well, I guess that's a matter of perspective.
Like I pointed out: problems cannot be solved if they are not put to attention of the team.
The methods of contacting the team are there, and there are a lot of them.
You seem, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, to imply that each and every *potential* problem that could be in SMF has to be known by the team. See my reference to the security issue that 2.0.4 patched how that's not possible.
And I do have my doubts when typing this because I know you're quite reasonable with the reasoning, so perhaps I am not fully understanding what it is you want here. Anyway, yes: some issues require an action before it prompts action from the team.
I don't consider that to be anything strange. I'm not sure why "conventional methods" could not be used to make the team aware, though.
I do agree whole heartidly that it is sometimes excruciatingly difficult to get something moving around here. No doubt. But... That's what happens when you're working with volunteers.
People have lives. (At least, some of us *grin*)
Well, I indeed think you shouldn't have to nor do I think you should have. And just for the record: By that I'm not implying you shouldn't give your opinion. It's just a mere observation from my perspective that makes me conclude that there was indeed not much need to do that. We can obviously disagree.
I think we are a bit on a different page on that aspect, anyway.
I would disagree with the "behind the wall" thing, but making an educated guess here I think it will best to agree to disagree on that part, heh.
As for keeping things "under wraps", I must say I totally disagree with you on that.
Nothing important is being kept under wraps here at SM. You may disagree, again, on the speed... But that's a personal preference.
I think we're quite, if not very, transparent and share a lot with the community and I think me (openly I might add) debating this with you is quite the proof of that, but indeed: all in good time whenever there is something to be released eventually. First things first. Just like with releases, things are ironed out completely until there is no, to the best of the available knowledge, problem left and ensure it is fixed for the full hundred percent before moving forward.
It's almost as if you feel we should make the FTC a completely publicly visible board. For the record: I know that's not what you're suggesting, but you are making a imho unfounded accusation that things are being kept under the wrap but it seems solely based on your feeling that come forth out of a, in your eyes, speed issue. You mistake speed, or lack thereof, for deliberate silence. That is not the case though. I think this may be a problem because you are commenting on project related issues of which you obtained some information, but you cannot see the developments. In short: you are commenting on a team based issue without being on the team. That may lead to some misinterpretations and wrong assumptions because you cannot get accurate updates on the information you have been fed.
While opinions may defer on the speed, I'm not sure why to choose, I guess, not to respect the way SM/SMF handles it. You can disagree on how it's done and/or how fast, of course, but does that warrant releasing info ever so slightly this way?
I'd say no, but that's rather irrelevant at this point.
You claim, while not being able to see everything, that it was chosen not to disclose anything, but that's something only someone outside the team can assume and indeed: speculate on. That doesn't necessarily make it a true fact, as it is not.
I think it all boils down to a difference in opinion. In the end, it's debating something in progress, unreleased.
If things would have truly been kept "under wraps", wouldn't I have removed all your posts and banned you by now?
You mean a problem that most wouldn't have even realised SMF had, had it not been pre-empted? A problem that some people are pretending didn't exist and that wasn't a problem in the first place?
Well, like I said, you cannot seriously expect a team to know about each and every problem a piece of software may have.
Again, I'm referring to the way we learned about the SMF 2.0.3 security issue leading to the 2.0.4 patch. If nobody talked to us: there would most likely not have been a 2.0.4 yet and the vulnerability would slumber still.
Many things, such as bugs (I mean, take the SMF 2.1 repo, if we didn't have beta testers... woo.
) are squashed by the team. But not *everything* can be known to the team at all times, even despite the rigorous checks.
I won't apologize for the project being imperfect
Take the current copyright issue. How long has that been going on? How many months ago was it that a developer, who by then had left, whose access to the repository hadn't been removed, came back to quietly make a huge change? Without even getting into the 'how did it happen' malarky... why did it take so long to figure out that going to a lawyer was necessary? Why wasn't a lawyer consulted as soon as the NPO took over, to clarify what the NPO actually had copyright to? (Because if it was, none of this would have been an issue in the first place) But instead it was done over 18 months later, only after someone had already tampered with it.
The need for that became clear within a matter of days in order to sort it out once and for all.
Finding a suitable solution is another story, but again: While you may feel rush should be the way to go and a fix should be there within a matter of minutes, I don't think that is the way to go at all. Sure, it went slower than it could have went, but what does that matter if it is sorted out properly eventually? This is a volunteer project, it's not exactly people being paid to work around the clock.
Better make sure it's done right and, as this project doesn't run on water, without costing tons.
When the NPO took over there was a different situation, by the way.
Please do not forget that.
The issue you are referring to was *not* an issue when the NPO was formed, or that is to say: Not in it's current form, it was handled differently at the time. Changes over the years however generated a new problem that was indeed not seen at first sight. And it pretty much isn't an issue anymore now though.
There's slow, there's slow, and there's what I can only call burying heads in sand and hoping the problem goes away.
Well, you're free to call it what you want, heh.
I am glad to tell you it's not the correct assumption to make though. It is regrettably indeed an assumption, and it's too bad you think so negative about it. That's up to you, of course. But please, don't make the mistake of seeing that assumption as a immediate fact.
You'd be surprised! And I hope you will be pleasantly surprised in the (near) future, even though you, like I am as well, can be hard to please in my experience.
Just... Patience! (I'd almost add "young Padawan!" to that, but you're near officially OLD. No worries, you don't have to thank me for saying that.
)
It's not an attack on me, nor do I see it as one. You're one of the few people I've had the pleasure of talking to who can actually attack a position, not a person. In reciprocation, I'm trying hard not to target a single individual for anything that's gone on here. I don't care who did (or did not) do something. I'm just annoyed that stuff isn't happening when if SMF wants to survive, it needs to start happening.
I am glad to hear that.
Oh I think you succeed pretty well in that, you seem to target it "as a whole" rather than pointing multiple fingers at multiple individuals. I applaud that.
Well I could start with a horrible cliche here that has something to do with Rome, heh, but let me just point out that I don't see much threats to SMF's future. Even though indeed, the past is something to learn from and that's a good thing: better the process, better the environment. There have most certainly been some mistakes, some good things mistaken for mistakes and good things in a whole. It just strikes me that people in general usually solely focus on the negative instead of the good and the bad, and that on my part slightly annoys me heh. But, that would almost indicate I have no right to be on the internet; the internet is nearly all about complaining rather than applauding or a combination of those two these days.
Opinions can be annoying/offensive, dealll wiithhh itttt. I probably offended enough people with my opinions, so it would be a bit hypocrite to start boohooing over an opinion of someone else myself, LOL.
Well, let's see... no-one appears to be saying or doing anything about the fact that smCore is dead and isn't going to be relaunched in any practical form (seeing how all of its contributors left). So, what's the plan?
All in good time.
Appearances can be deceiving, might I just note that. And you can ask anyone on the team to confirm that if you do not wish to take my word for it.
Here's the thing: SMF is a project in dire need of competent developers. No developer is going to magically come along and rescue the project, especially not with all the horror stories. I keep hearing talk of how it's all different now, but I'm just not convinced.
Indeed it is. Or that is to at least say: More of them!
As for horror stories... Meh.
We do not have to agree, I guess.
I think that perhaps a whole fresh load of devs might prove to be a different situation than the same people being involved all the time. Fresh winds and bla.
But anyway, the question of the hour: does anyone have anything resembling a plan at all? Is anyone going to share with the community what that plan might be?
Yes.
What's left to do in 2.1? If anyone had any idea of what was missing, maybe you'd get some help.
Is there going to be a 2.2? Or will the next version be 3.0? What's the plan for these things? Is there a plan? Assuming there is a plan and someone has some idea what's going on, who's going to go build it?
Well, perhaps that's a good thing to ask the developers.
Duly noted: you, and probably more people, are in need of a status update on 2.1.
Granted, I do not think the developers will have any problems at all divulging that information and I would be very happy if people stepped up to help: it may speed things up!
Help is appreciated and it is what makes it community driven.
For 2.2 and 3.0 and let me rephrase that in to a word that catches it all: A roadmap, I will refer back to the developers again. It's as they say not my party nor my area of expertise or prime activity.
Which brings me back to the small matter of the lack of devs. If you communicate with the community about the plan, there is a small chance - and it is, sadly, small, though not as small as straight up wishful thinking - that a developer might be inclined to get involved.
I am aware that even discussing this issue publicly is going to put potential developers off as things stand - but I'm also aware that people who go into something with the best of intentions might be soured by what they find. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
For 2.1 there is no immediate lack of developers, but as always: we are looking for talent.
Well, I hope it does not. Nobody bites ya know.
But sure, everyone could be disappointed, but it can go another way as well: sheer happines to be working on a still very much promising project. Past is past, and the past has given valueable lessons.
Although that is not to say you may ofcourse 100% agree on working methods, I guess that's what lead to your fork spawning, for example.
There's only one software going more slowly than SMF right now, and that's XenForo.
As for not having a reputation of going 'lightning fast', there's another reason why all the momentum left and took most of the competent developers with it. Not going 'lightning fast' is one thing, but taking 18 months to get to the level of perceived change in 2.1 seems... slow. I've tried 2.1, and while what there is is good (and due credit to the people who made it what it is), it doesn't really feel like a huge step forward.
Before anyone waves the 'but Wedge has had 2 1/2 years', yes it's had 2 1/2 years. It's also had tens of thousands of lines of iterations and coming up to 2,000 (SVN, not Git) commits, including a redesigned theme engine, a rebuilt from scratch package manager and so on. Small changes like what 2.1 looks like should not take 18 months.
I'm well aware that things take time, and that quality should not be rushed, but this seems wrong somehow.
I'll take your word on XenForo, I don't know them.
Well, in regards to SMF 2.1. I guess it's a matter of taste. And perhaps also a reason why you took the road of creating a fork.
Whilst SMF 2.1 might not be a complete rewrite and a new SMF from near scratch, I'm not sure if it has to be.
SMF 2.1 will be offering some splendid new functionality, rewritten parts, patched up current functionality, more in par with "today's world", et cetera. Is it a 100% new product? Nope. Does it *have* to be? Imho: Nope.
There are even still people on SMF 1.x (sadly, also on 1.0.x, although it does show how much of a robust product SMF is which makes me quite happy.) that haven't even touched SMF 2.x. It shows SMF on it's self is a highly solid product which covers the needs of many people. Had it not, we wouldn't have so many users, of course.
You're free to be disappointed because you had hoped to see far more changes and a 100% new SMF product, but I have a opposite preference: I like SMF sticking to it's root in large lines but DOES take wishes of the community, and of course: self made up new functions, rewrites, etc, in mind with the upcomming SMF 2.1. It's a blend of both... Innovating, renewing and changing while, however, sticking to roots that made SMF such a major succesful piece of software in the first place, the product that is loved by many people. I think 2.1 shows to be a perfect combination of innovation, based on community feedback and ideas of the team, and staying true to the essence of SMF itself by not making a 100% new product.
(My god, that whole part sounds horribly OMG MARKETING!!1! but it is my sincere personal opinion on the software.)
I mean, if you look at it that way: SMF 2.x wasn't a super huge change over SMF 1.x either: SMF 2.x also remained true to it's roots set out in SMF 1.x. Did it come with new functionality, a new design, large rewritten parts: Absolutely. But in essence, SMF is still SMF. The same is happening with SMF 2.1. Although, I ofcourse must admit SMF 2.x did have some *major* code differences over 1.x. (That is NOT to say that 2.1 doesn't have that. But, perhaps less than what you personally had hoped for. Which is probably another reason why you chose to make a rewrite of your own.)
Perhaps it could have been done faster, perhaps it could not have been. We had a few setbacks.
But... SMF 2.1 is getting closer to a release each day that passes. And that is a prime example of what I see as a good thing.
Yeah, you can certainly argue it's taken it's damn time... But you can also look on the bright side of life (yep, that was a reference.) and focus on happy thoughts: It's getting closer to RC status day by day.
It is pretty solid, yes, necessitating 4 patches in 1 1/2 years is good going (for comparison, SMF 1.1.x had 18 patches across 6 1/2 years, roughly 3/year). But if you're not going to release, need to keep in touch with users, to let them know what's going on. I find this very topic hilarious, given that it was set out by the previous lead dev last year about a plan that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
SMF 2.1 will most certainly be released.
But, I think I sense a reference to something else in there... On that part, I would ask you to have patience.
You're asking to receive a basket full of cookies at once. There will be news.
Thanks
