FWIW, I have XOOPS 2.2.4 running on MySQL 5.0.18. The only thing I did was backup the db, install 5.0.18, then reload the db from the backup. Until I did the backup/reinstall, I ran into a few errors with table structures

Quote:

FWIW, the one I made is still available. If someone from the dev team wishes it taken down for whatever reason, please contact me (PM, email, whatever) to let me know.

So why ever release a full version then and just patch everything? A .0 release can be full and from then on patch it.

I just see that the same argument for not releasing a full version (people can apply the patch themselves since its not hard to do) can be applied in reverse (make a full version available since it is a small patch).

And, FWIW, Debian packages are updated in their entirety, not just a patch; thats what revision numbers are for. An updated deb is just as installable as its previous, non-updated predecessor was.

I also agree with the others here that if the dev team wants people to not use 2.2.x series, then it should be noted somewhere. Otherwise, it appears that it is the most recent version and should be the one under active development.

The whole thing is just a mess IMHO. Roadmaps and such are great for future planning, but what about the mess that exists right now? Its just frustrating to have something this simple lead to so much trouble; like watching a friend shoot himself in the foot.

EDIT: In the interest of putting this whole thing to rest, I made full versions of 2.2.4. They are available with md5 sums fromhttp://debcentral.org/downloads/xoops/

Feel free to use them however you like.

Beautiful site! The colors and images are wonderful! Great work!

I agree it looks great. Some of your articles that make exploits available for script kiddies would seem to be a bit questionable to some (myself included). Then again, IIS is porous enough eithout any additional help or scripted DDoS tools, and 99% of admins would easily deflect those attacks anyway.

Looks great to me! Very nice design. Good luck with it!

I tend to fall in line with the camp of "there should be a full download of 2.2.4". If it is so simple for a user, why not take the step of making it even simpler by offering the entire thing. Othwerise, why even call it a point release; maybe it should have been 2.2.3b or something.

Anyway, this whole thing with the 2.2.x series has gotten way out of hand. IMO, it makes XOOPS look like it has very little direction and an uncertain future. The whole thing has been handled very poorly from the start. Losing the demo on an influential site such as opensourcecms is a huge detriment to Xoops, especially when the fix is so simple. With actions such as these, even I am having a hard time seriously reccomending XOOPS to anyone.

Would it help if I or someone else took the few minutes to create a full download and offered it to someone with the authority to review and post?

This complaint seems to be reoccurring every so often. I know I for one share many of the same frustrations.

One solution, which may or may not help, is to establish some sort of tracking of actively maintained and dead modules. This way it would be very clear to potential contributors, as well as end users which modules are suffering from neglect, lack of resources, etc. Another benefit is that someone wanting to get started working with XOOPS modules has a quick reference to see which third party areas are in the most need of help.

I know I myself have had to make a few customizations to modules occasionally, and even to the core of Xoops. But with no real way to funnel those changes back, they simply sit on my server. If I knew module "foo" used to be maintained by "X", I could send my changes to "X" and either take over maintaining the module, assist with current development (if the current maintainer is so inclined), or prepare a new release under the same name instead of forking a module to a new name.

Basically, I think there needs to be some improvement in the tracking of active vs dead modules, and a way for those interested in helping out to claim dead modules as a new maintainer. Oh, and the new xoopsforge.com seems to be reddundant with dev.xoops.org and the use of WP, IMHO, makes it a jumbled mess. Now that I've aired my complaints, I'll back them up by saying I would be willing to jump in and help out wherever possible or needed.

I think this makes sense, but forgive me if it rambles a bit. Mr Arthur Guinness and myself had a long night last night, and I'm just clearing the cobwebs now

The problem also comes in when the tables have their own styles hardcoded in. This usually breaks XHTML validation.

Quote:

Great! Thanks!