Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Arantor
3586
The Pub / Re: Database Backup, Restore and Repair
« on April 27th, 2012, 02:09 PM »
Yes, but you're not the sort of user for who any of this is a problem. Folks like us who can administer with heavyweight tools do not have a problem because those heavyweight tools do the work. For the purpose of discussing incremental backups, we'd be talking about implementing it at the application level, nor the server level where XtraBackup works.

Folks who can use the command line have no such problems with timeouts or incomplete backups or corrupted backups, it's the poor sods who are on shared hosting who get shafted, every time.
3587
The Pub / Re: Database Backup, Restore and Repair
« on April 27th, 2012, 01:43 PM »
Never used it but likely that it would make a better job of it than SMF's would.
3588
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on April 27th, 2012, 01:43 PM »
Quote
What's interesting about that cookie is that if you inspect it in Firefox, it contains the name of the ISP you're connected via. That's what led me to believe it was being set by an ISP.
Funny, in the screenshot you posted, it was using your IP address - but it'll go with a hostname if it has that available. The idea is to validate that when content is posted, that it's come from the same source as the person getting the form (so that you don't get the same amount of pump and dump spam)
Quote
Incidentally, Wolf Software (UK) has a neat javascript GPL implementation requiring only a slight modification to the page header. The company claims it has consulted with ICO to ensure its solution fully complies with the law.
Got a link? There's certainly nothing that says the consent has to be shown every page and nothing that says it can't be set via JavaScript, so I can well believe it is compliant but I'd like to see it to get a sense of what the ICO is claimed to have agreed with.
3589
The Pub / Re: Number of 'online users'
« on April 27th, 2012, 01:40 PM »
So, putting aside the friend stuff that needs a serious overhaul, where do we stand on guests and not issuing them with sessions?

I personally think the benefits drastically outweigh the downside but I'm thinking others may feel differently. Anyone got any objections to what I'm suggesting?
3590
Plugins / Re: Plugins I refuse to do
« on April 27th, 2012, 12:23 PM »
It would be an improvement over numbers - but no magic bullet. Still, as a default out-of-the-box setup it's quite reasonable.
3591
Bug reports / Re: Pretty URL remarks
« on April 27th, 2012, 12:22 PM »
It doesn't 'work like a charm' for competent sysadmins who don't use FTP - it only works for me if I unsecure WP installations.

If you think for one moment I'm going to trade security for functionality, you're very much mistaken.
3592
The Pub / Re: Number of 'online users'
« on April 27th, 2012, 12:19 PM »
No it doesn't, it doesn't tell anyone who has friended them in any fashion,
3593
Archived fixes / Re: Drafts being saved is not shown in QR
« on April 26th, 2012, 10:04 PM »
The oldest draft I have is 19th April, and that's 7 days old, so it's possible that it's even older than that, because only 7 days' worth are kept.
3594
Archived fixes / Re: Error when posting a large image...
« on April 26th, 2012, 08:49 PM »
Actually, SMF already sets the limit to 90M anyway and Wedge did the same, but we also need to make use of ImageMagick if installed...
3595
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on April 26th, 2012, 07:57 PM »
Well,bb2_screener_ is set by Bad Behaviour. I'm aware of that cookie and have chosen not to implement it into the implementation that's in Wedge, so that's not an issue.

But that's rather unpleasant that you're getting injected cookies like that. Not using Google Adsense, I take it?
3596
Archived fixes / Re: Error when posting a large image...
« on April 26th, 2012, 07:53 PM »
Actually, I think I removed checkGD from being present generally because we ensured that GD existed on install and that we didn't really need to check every time thereafter, so the check can thus be removed.
3597
Features / Re: Multiple default skins?
« on April 26th, 2012, 07:44 PM »
If you want to remember a user preference for a guest, a cookie might be better in this case, because it's not something that needs to be stored, and still falls into the definition of 'remembering a user's preference', though it's complicated and depends on how you define 'persistent' for things like that.

SMF does other things like that with cookies, like remembering certain preferences for upshrinks and so on, I see no reason why we couldn't do the same for guest themes, which will still be more efficient than creating a session in *any* form, regardless of how it's created. (Oh, and no, IP session is still a bad idea, and I'd rather keep the current setup than go down that road the more I think about it)
3598
Test board / Re: Characters in CP-1252 that don't work, apparently
« on April 26th, 2012, 07:40 PM »
Question, then, should the entity be left as a literal, or be treated as though the entity should be converted to its character equivalent?

This may have other concerns, e.g. nobbc or even the controversial 39 entity.
3599
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on April 26th, 2012, 07:39 PM »
I didn't think there were any left anyway, I thought the only use was index+Modifications, which I killed a bit back anyway.
Quote
I have no idea what you mean, sorry.
You can't do some magic to 'no special cases' and magically expect _n to just work. Let's go back to your suggestion:
Quote
Oh and we could for instance put a string instead of an array, and that would mean 'no special treatment' (i.e. always '_n'), meaning that instead of doing sprintf() on strings, we could directly call number_context even if we don't have special treatment for them in French or English -- because it doesn't mean other languages won't need it...
There is no way that can work without using sprintf on that string. Unless the string doesn't have the number in it in the first place, the whole point is that a _n number string will still have %1$s in it somewhere to indicate where the number will be injected (and it will be s not d because it will be injected as a string)

_1 cases may well have 1 in it and not have any need to inject a number, as well as _0 cases might avoid it by being 'No ... found' or whatever, so there won't be a number. But _n cases will have a number that needs to be added, so it has to be sprintf'd.
Quote
Given how many years happen between each major release, I think it's safe to say that PHP 5.4 is a major update -- if only because it'll break stuff and server admins will take 10 years to install it, blah blah...
That's the thing, PHP 5.4 isn't a particularly major update compared to 5.3. And already I gather 5.4.1 is out.
3600
Archived fixes / Re: Time offset (auto detect)
« on April 26th, 2012, 07:35 PM »
Quote
But that's how SMF does it, isn't it...?
No, SMF takes server time from the server time's timezone, adds the 'server offset' then adds the 'user offset' and considers that good enough. Since the server timezone has to be set otherwise you get *flooded* with errors (think a warning with every time(), every date() call), you have to do something.

If the user timezone is set properly, you don't really have to have the server's time offset (though we *can* for the purposes of guest timezones, I guess), you just have to really worry about server + user timezone and everything else will pretty much just work.

Really what we're arguing about is how idiot proof we make it for the user, not the underlying code which is mostly working (it's ALL UI issues related to timezone, nothing else)