Forum Software

[warz]

Can I motion for change to an older version of SMF? There is great debate about upgrading, but has anyone ever thought about the pros of downgrading?

[iago]

I never have an issue upgrading to stable releases.

Right, I'm talking about stable non-releases again

Because it's a non-released version. It even says on their site to use it for experimentation/testing purposes only, not for production sites.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here because I've said this a number of times and it's the crux of our disagreement...SMF is abusing the RC label and it's plenty stable.  I've been running it on a production site (forum.chavoland.com) for some time.  The vast majority of bugs pertain to the new themeing/templating system because that's the major new feature of SMF.  We don't care about that, but we do care about other notable features like the improved permissions.  I don't think it's worth my time to debate this in great detail since we've talked about it before and apparently gotten nowhere.

If the developers don't believe it's stable enough to be deployed, then I'm willing to believe them over others.

Another reason to upgrade to a non-released version? That doesn't even make sense -- it should be a reason AGAINST installing a non-release version, if anything.

It's another reason to migrate the forum.  You acted like you were mad that people were bitching at you to upgrade and gave an ultimatum to either shutup or take over the responsibility.  I'm offering to take over the responsibility.  It's only now, after you've seen that I'm serious about it, that you've made some effort in this particular maintenance aspect (not that you were doing a poor job before..I do appreciate you hosting the site/domain, just that we obviously have had some disagreement regarding the extent of this).

Mostly Rabbit, for being a jerk and him blaming everybody else for his own shortfalls.

[Lead]

This vote was rigged!

[Chavo]

If the developers don't believe it's stable enough to be deployed, then I'm willing to believe them over others.

Again, I hate getting into this since it is not the first time..
Versions numbers/releases are an exceedingly poor representation of software stability or usability.  I'm sure I don't need to point out examples here.

Mostly Rabbit, for being a jerk and him blaming everybody else for his own shortfalls.

So what's the issue? I've already demonstrated that I'm willing to do the legwork and stay in it for the long-hall.

[iago]

If the developers don't believe it's stable enough to be deployed, then I'm willing to believe them over others.

Again, I hate getting into this since it is not the first time..
Versions numbers/releases are an exceedingly poor representation of software stability or usability.  I'm sure I don't need to point out examples here.

Be that as it may, as I said, I'm going to go with the developers' advice, "Note: As this is in early beta we do not suggest running SMF 2.0 RC1.2 on a production site.".

Mostly Rabbit, for being a jerk and him blaming everybody else for his own shortfalls.

So what's the issue? I've already demonstrated that I'm willing to do the legwork and stay in it for the long-hall.

True, but after thinking about it I kinda feel bad.. on one hand, it'd be nice to move some responsibility off my server; on the other, I kind of feel like I'm giving up my responsibility, which I don't like.

In any case, like I said, I'm willing to compromise and commit to a schedule -- if they don't release 2.0 by Feb 1, I'll install whatever they have. Hell, I'll even bump the day back to Dec 1 if it'll make you happy! I just want to give them some more time to have something that *they* (as opposed to *you*) consider stable and production ready.

I realize that you consider it ready, but I still think it sounds irresponsible to install something that the developers consider "an early beta", whether or not it's mostly working. Hopefully, they're in a better position to make that call than anybody else.

When I updated to 1.10, I noticed I still have a 'x86-beta' directory where I tried to install the 2.0RC1 when it was released. Good times.

[Camel]

@iago: Am I correct in assuming that your major concern is the migration phase, and not actual production use?

If that's the case, you could snapshot the files/db and give it a shot, since rolling back is not particularly hard; and if you do encounter any hangups, then you'll have proven your point and silenced the masses.

[Chavo]

I realize that you consider it ready, but I still think it sounds irresponsible to install something that the developers consider "an early beta", whether or not it's mostly working. Hopefully, they're in a better position to make that call than anybody else.

The fact that they call it both an early beta and an RC should give a hint as to how often they update their release status and how useless their labels are

That said, I'm willing to accept your compromise date for now.

[Joe]

Depends what you mean by 'next release' -- I'll be willing to install 2.0 when it comes out, but not 2.0RC2 or 2.0RC3 or even 2.0RC100.

How about we make a deal, then. We'll give them 6 months (till Feb 1/2010). If 2.0 isn't fully released by then, we'll install whatever their latest RC is. Yes?

How about Stealthbot 2.69999 release candidate 40?

Yes -- 2.7 is coming. It has been for years.

[rabbit]

Stealthbot is made by an idiot, though.

[Joe]

Stealthbot is made by an idiot, though.

Lord, or Stealth?

Cause I've met Stealth face-to-face, and I can say he's not an idiot. He's a really cool guy.

And Lord's an ass, but not an idiot by any definition.

[Warrior]

Stealth is an ok guy, Joe vouched for him. Lol.

[Armin]

Stealthbot is made by an idiot, though.

Says the guy that deleted the entire "Member" usergroup (thousands of users) at stealthbot.net when he as an admin. I don't think Stealth ever did that.

Versions numbers/releases are an exceedingly poor representation of software stability or usability.  I'm sure I don't need to point out examples here.

Here's an extraordinary example: Exact Audio Copy. It's easily the standard for precisely ripping and burning CDs, yet it's only at V0.99 prebeta 5.

[rabbit]

Stealthbot is made by an idiot, though.

Says the guy that deleted the entire "Member" usergroup (thousands of users) at stealthbot.net when he as an admin. I don't think Stealth ever did that.

Accidentally, and I none of you idiots know that I told Stealth that I didn't know what would happen when I pushed the button (I wasn't trying to delete EVERY user), and he said do it anyway.

[Joe]

Watch out, rabbit is mad.

Seriously, didn't you just have a conditional backwards or something? Meh.

[rabbit]

Watch out, rabbit is mad.

Seriously, didn't you just have a conditional backwards or something? Meh.

I have no idea what was wrong.  And wouldn't you be mad if people kept bringing up a mistake you made 4 years ago to make a point now?  Wait, I forgot.  You sent pictures of your dick to iago.