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
7336
Other software / Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« on May 29th, 2011, 09:11 PM »see im too tired so i appologise for missin those things ... as for the bugs no idea i can barley use the bugtracker (it sucks)
7337
Other software / Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« on May 29th, 2011, 08:38 PM »
Yes, we noticed, probably multiple pages ago. We noticed a great number of things like the inconsistencies in the now-two menus some of which seem to have been resolved by now, not to mention the fact that while there are 5 unresolved bugs, how many more were merely deferred to 2.1 instead of being solved for 2.0?
7338
Features / Re: Share user database for 2 (or more) different forums.
« on May 29th, 2011, 03:47 PM »
If you design the DB so it's in pieces rather than mashed together, it should be possible.
7339
Features / Re: Share user database for 2 (or more) different forums.
« on May 29th, 2011, 02:52 PM »
It's been discussed a few times how to do it, several different approaches suggested, each of them susceptible to the things I've outlined. Not to mention groups, permissions and plenty more besides.
There was a mod I saw a bit back that created multiple virtual forums under a single container install, but that's not quite the same thing, of course.
In order to really achieve it successfully, you'd need to have proper segregation of user data from other data, none of this pushing it into the members table: you'd have groups in their own table, you'd have post count and other forum dependent (as opposed to member dependent) data in another table too, so that it could be retrieved through joins rather than bulking out the members table - and segregating it means you can share parts of it in isolation rather than sharing lots and filtering out what you don't need.
There was a mod I saw a bit back that created multiple virtual forums under a single container install, but that's not quite the same thing, of course.
In order to really achieve it successfully, you'd need to have proper segregation of user data from other data, none of this pushing it into the members table: you'd have groups in their own table, you'd have post count and other forum dependent (as opposed to member dependent) data in another table too, so that it could be retrieved through joins rather than bulking out the members table - and segregating it means you can share parts of it in isolation rather than sharing lots and filtering out what you don't need.
7340
Features / Re: Share user database for 2 (or more) different forums.
« on May 29th, 2011, 02:39 PM »
I wonder how badly abused SMF's tableset had to be to make it work in the first place, seeing how the data is not set up to do this in the first place, on account of the fact that uploaded avatars are in the attachments table (and you can't share that because it'll fuck up attachments across the forums) and that post counts are stored in the members table itself, which means you're talking about a single post-count between the shared forums..
7341
Other software / Re: SMF, yeah right. (Re: Introduction)
« on May 29th, 2011, 12:33 PM »Yes they have fixed very little in the last month and may as well have released it when they got the final signature.
However it would be sad if this were to become an anti-SMF sound-off forum, rather than pro-Wedge development space
Then you can let your coding do the talking, and people will be more willing to listen if Wedge were something new and better rather than something negative.
I hope my honesty is not out of line.
7342
Other software / Re: SMF, yeah right. (Re: Introduction)
« on May 29th, 2011, 10:46 AM »They're supposed to release this week. They aren't doing a damn thing.
They are quite happy to defer even minor bugs to 2.1 however. I can't even begin to describe how fucking ridiculous this is.
(Remember I said that SimpleDesk would be done before them? It would had I actually stuck to feature lock instead of adding neat stuff that makes it more awesome. I will note that I won't add any new features other than what's on SD's tracker, but there are currently no known bugs, and that's a circumstance they can't match!)
I got nothing else to add to the above, it sums it up just right.
7343
Other software / Re: SMF, yeah right. (Re: Introduction)
« on May 29th, 2011, 01:58 AM »
To be fair, Oldiesmann did ask politely when he asked me first. I complied, politely, but firmly stating that I wasn't happy.
Oldiesmann isn't Kindred in disguise, Kindred is more vocal on the forums, even if they seem to be saying the same thing a little too often.
Oldiesmann isn't Kindred in disguise, Kindred is more vocal on the forums, even if they seem to be saying the same thing a little too often.
7344
Other software / Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« on May 29th, 2011, 12:27 AM »SMF is trademarked... But SM F3 isn't :niark:
Arguing SMF vs SM F3 is murky grounds, I'd rather not go there to be honest.
7345
Other software / Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« on May 28th, 2011, 11:52 PM »
They'd love the change to wave their trademark e-peen in that direction ;)
7346
Off-topic / Re: Wedge support
« on May 28th, 2011, 02:52 PM »
No idea right now. Which would you rather we do... spend time planning ahead for how we're going to support a product that doesn't exist, or spend time building it?
7347
Off-topic / Re: Wedge support
« on May 28th, 2011, 02:18 PM »
It's not for nothing that I've been going by the nickname Gruffen over on SimpleDesk, which naturally gets shortened to... :lol:
7348
Off-topic / Re: Wedge support
« on May 28th, 2011, 01:27 PM »
It didn't come across as that at all, but concern - and a very valid one.
* Arantor is just grumpy this morning... oh wait, I'm always grumpy :P
7349
Off-topic / Re: Wedge support
« on May 28th, 2011, 12:54 PM »
*nods*
Fact is, support in SMF breaks down into three categories:
1. How do I do <x>? [where <x> is a built in feature] - either because they don't know where to find it or how to use it (-> underlying problem: poor UI design, solution: fix the UI design to make it more logical)
2. How do I do <x>? [where <x> is not a built in feature] - so clarifying what the system doesn't do and figuring out how to make it do it.
3. Help, it's broken, doing <x> - often a mod or symptomatic issue within the system.
1 is the kind of issue we hope to reduce anyway, and is the kind people will be most likely to help with.
2 is where add-on authors will be needed and those familiar with changing the code.
3 is possibly a bug, but possibly also the add-on authors' responsibility. These are also the types of problems I'll be concentrating on first, because these could be bugs and we need to eliminate that first.
Fact is, support in SMF breaks down into three categories:
1. How do I do <x>? [where <x> is a built in feature] - either because they don't know where to find it or how to use it (-> underlying problem: poor UI design, solution: fix the UI design to make it more logical)
2. How do I do <x>? [where <x> is not a built in feature] - so clarifying what the system doesn't do and figuring out how to make it do it.
3. Help, it's broken, doing <x> - often a mod or symptomatic issue within the system.
1 is the kind of issue we hope to reduce anyway, and is the kind people will be most likely to help with.
2 is where add-on authors will be needed and those familiar with changing the code.
3 is possibly a bug, but possibly also the add-on authors' responsibility. These are also the types of problems I'll be concentrating on first, because these could be bugs and we need to eliminate that first.
7350
Other software / Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« on May 28th, 2011, 12:50 PM »
That's not what I meant.
You have software that is long delayed, that has a number of bugs that are easy to fix, even with the code provided in some cases. Yet instead of fixing them, they were just deferred to the next version. Not because they were either easy or hard to fix, but because, and I quote the lead developer on more than one of these, they weren't "release worthy".
I could have accepted the position of deferring bugs to a later version if the bugs required a major amount of work to fix *and* there wasn't this "we will fix everything before release" BS that's been floating around for years.
Software is an iterative thing, and a release is a snapshot on an otherwise forward-moving road. I'm cool with that. But the number of deferred things and what has to happen next, they'll maybe fix the little bugs in 2.1 and defer the bigger stuff to 3.0, by which time they'll pretty much have to start fresh and nuke all the old bugs and create many new ones.
As it stands, deferring bugs because you essentially talked yourself into a corner is no way to behave. I even found yet another bug today which we already fixed in passing, I believe, without even discovering the bug itself. I could be nice and report it but it'll only be deferred to 2.1 to fix, so why bother? It's not like it's a security bug.
You have software that is long delayed, that has a number of bugs that are easy to fix, even with the code provided in some cases. Yet instead of fixing them, they were just deferred to the next version. Not because they were either easy or hard to fix, but because, and I quote the lead developer on more than one of these, they weren't "release worthy".
I could have accepted the position of deferring bugs to a later version if the bugs required a major amount of work to fix *and* there wasn't this "we will fix everything before release" BS that's been floating around for years.
Software is an iterative thing, and a release is a snapshot on an otherwise forward-moving road. I'm cool with that. But the number of deferred things and what has to happen next, they'll maybe fix the little bugs in 2.1 and defer the bigger stuff to 3.0, by which time they'll pretty much have to start fresh and nuke all the old bugs and create many new ones.
As it stands, deferring bugs because you essentially talked yourself into a corner is no way to behave. I even found yet another bug today which we already fixed in passing, I believe, without even discovering the bug itself. I could be nice and report it but it'll only be deferred to 2.1 to fix, so why bother? It's not like it's a security bug.