The future of SMF

[Imutep]

I'm new on smf, but what i've read here sounds great. SMF is knocking on the future.....

[Powerbob]

Any news on 2.1 ?

[Kindred]

you can look yourself, at the git repository...

[Fustrate]

Lazy Kindred

https://github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1

[Arantor]

The only problem with doing that is that people who shouldn't really be using it will end up using it and then complain that it isn't ready yet >_<

[Kindred]

lol.. not lazy. Posting from a phone/tablet.

And yes, Arantor... but, on the other hand, it certainly beats us having to listen to "any news, any news, any news..." (ad inifinitum) from the moaners out there.


If you don't know what you're doing, then wait for the release...  if you want to know when the release will be ready, I point you to every single answer given previously - "It will be ready when it's ready"

[Arantor]

And yes, Arantor... but, on the other hand, it certainly beats us having to listen to "any news, any news, any news..." (ad inifinitum) from the moaners out there.

I'm not convinced. What I think will happen is that those who would moan about no news would moan it isn't ready, same reason why I won't give out the Wedge repo details - those who moan will find something to moan about, it'll just be moaning about something different, and personally I'd rather people moan about a delay rather than poor quality/rushed delivery.

[butchs]

Hey you get to moan more than everyone else.  This time it is my turn:

• Why are you changing the "main_block.png" to "bars.png" and moving all the graphics around so that it is a time consuming PITA to guess at the format and make a new one?
• What's with all the "smalltext" in displaytemplate.php?
• I am sure there is more...

[Arantor]

Hey you get to moan more than everyone else.

I've earned the right

Why are you changing the "main_block.png" to "bars.png" and moving all the graphics around so that it is a time consuming PITA to guess at the format and make a new one?

I got nothing. This seems a bit bizarre.

What's with all the "smalltext" in displaytemplate.php?

Maybe one of the developers is being paid by a spectacles manufacturer to screw everyone's eyesight? Seriously, there is a lot of fluff in the display template and making it smaller would be better than leaving some of it as is.

[butchs]

Maybe one of the developers is being paid by a spectacles manufacturer to screw everyone's eyesight? Seriously, there is a lot of fluff in the display template and making it smaller would be better than leaving some of it as is.

Aaaaaah!!!   Shouldn't it be moved to a css file?

[Arantor]

Well, probably, yes.

[The Craw]

The only problem with doing that is that people who shouldn't really be using it will end up using it and then complain that it isn't ready yet >_<

I figure anyone who can figure out how to make a copy of 2.1 or SMCore work is smart enough to understand why it isn't ready. Github isn't exactly a one-click installer.

[Arantor]

Never underestimate how far people will go to get what they think they want, only to be dissatisfied at the end of it.

[All Colours Sam]

The only problem with doing that is that people who shouldn't really be using it will end up using it and then complain that it isn't ready yet >_<

Thats one downside of open source, we can't really hide an open source project.

Moaners will always moan no matter what, the really cool think about been an open source is that any feature request can be answered with a "commit or STFO"

[Arantor]

Thats one downside of open source, we can't really hide an open source project.

SMF did for years

Moaners will always moan no matter what, the really cool think about been an open source is that any feature request can be answered with a "commit or STFO"

The problem with that approach is that you can't add in every commit, even if it follows all the coding standards because not all commits will suit the goals of the project as a whole.

[All Colours Sam]

Thats one downside of open source, we can't really hide an open source project.

SMF did for years

True, but then again SMF wasn't truly an open source project, we pretty much controlled the distribution, something that just don't get along with any open source license.

The problem with that approach is that you can't add in every commit, even if it follows all the coding standards because not all commits will suit the goals of the project as a whole.

Absolutely true, you can't just let anybody enter to your house   and I'm pretty sure there will be some pull request that will be denied, heck I have a couple of changes that I will like to have but I just didn't pull a request because I know those changes will never go into the main repo

That is why it is vital to keep a team, many people say that after the license change, there is no need to keep a SMF team, well, this is one of the reasons why it should be a team, kinda like a "quality control" team.

Sure, a lot of people will get upset about their commits not been included, that is just a thing we will have to deal just like we had to deal with moaners all those years

[Arantor]

True, but then again SMF wasn't truly an open source project, we pretty much controlled the distribution, something that just don't get along with any open source license.

2.0 is under a truly open source licence, and the 2.0 security releases were carried out under that restricted environment.

The licence does not affect the way in which the developers choose to develop the project, they are free to develop it entirely under wraps. I don't believe MyBB (LGPL) has their repo fully open to the world, for example.

and I'm pretty sure there will be some pull request that will be denied, heck I have a couple of changes that I will like to have but I just didn't pull a request because I know those changes will never go into the main repo

Yup, and that's part of the problem with open development, it makes such things absolutely transparent and if you're not interested in taking on external development much, or have a high standard, you might as well keep the repo private.

Sure, a lot of people will get upset about their commits not been included, that is just a thing we will have to deal just like we had to deal with moaners all those years

Except that you get that in addition to the 'I downloaded it but it isn't ready yet' moans. And that still doesn't detract from the 'why isn't it ready yet' moan. To me, it makes more work, not less.

[All Colours Sam]

2.0 is under a truly open source licence, and the 2.0 security releases were carried out under that restricted environment.

The licence does not affect the way in which the developers choose to develop the project, they are free to develop it entirely under wraps. I don't believe MyBB (LGPL) has their repo fully open to the world, for example.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV so don't quote me on this but as far as I understand only 2.0 and forward are under an open source license, that is, any RC and 1.0 and 1.1 releases are still under the SMF license.

As for the development process, yes, the license doesn't force you to keep your environment open but, it is better to keep the "official" environment open than to let somebody else to upload the SMF code to bitbucket or whatever and to fool people to think that page is the official one.

We can't really stop people from doing that but at least we can be truly transparent about the "official" development and people can make their own conclusions on it.

Except that you get that in addition to the 'I downloaded it but it isn't ready yet' moans. And that still doesn't detract from the 'why isn't it ready yet' moan. To me, it makes more work, not less.

Yes I agree, there always will be people complaining about this, this will not change, it happen in the past and happens now and will happen on the future.

This doesn't have to do much with what license or develop environment we chose but has to do with the whole free thing, being free means a lot of people, different kind of people has access to this software, this will inevitably will attract people with, lests say, not so much understanding about software and stuff

[Arantor]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV so don't quote me on this but as far as I understand only 2.0 and forward are under an open source license, that is, any RC and 1.0 and 1.1 releases are still under the SMF license.

Correct.

As for the development process, yes, the license doesn't force you to keep your environment open but, it is better to keep the "official" environment open than to let somebody else to upload the SMF code to bitbucket or whatever and to fool people to think that page is the official one.

If that were to happen you could quite happily take action in those cases. The protections in the licence basically amount to that if someone wants to do so, it's still copyrighted to SMF and that they need to change the name of it otherwise.

This doesn't have to do much with what license or develop environment we chose but has to do with the whole free thing, being free means a lot of people, different kind of people has access to this software, this will inevitably will attract people with, lests say, not so much understanding about software and stuff

And that's my problem with it all: it means you get people seeing the code who shouldn't be let loose with it.

[All Colours Sam]

If that were to happen you could quite happily take action in those cases. The protections in the licence basically amount to that if someone wants to do so, it's still copyrighted to SMF and that they need to change the name of it otherwise.

Of course, I was talking about the code and not so much a bout the trademark fulcrum and all that stuff, anyone can upload a 2.0 version on any site and do with that what ever they want, people aren't smart enough to properly understand the concept of fork so we will end up taking the blame anyways, that is why I think it will be better to just be truly open about this, if people are dumb, well, that is their problem, we are doing all we can, the rest is up to them

And that's my problem with it all: it means you get people seeing the code who shouldn't be let loose with it.

Yes, it is inevitable, we pretty much need to learn to live with it, there is no choice, hiding the development process will do more harm than good (specially because of our history), we have been persecuted for that for years

I think the benefits of being open overpass the downsides of it, if people moan we can always write something on the wiki and just put a link to that whenever there is a moaner.