NOT PHP5, but using PHP 4.4.2 and MySQL 4.0.26 instead.

During 2.0.9.2 to 2.0.10 upgrade, I experienced fatal error, all blank pages, and even cannot access Admin Page to open debug mode!!

BTW, website is UP now. But those PHP notices...sss still excess after subsequence patch upgrade from 2.0.7.x to 2.0.13.2. At moment, can ignore it by closing debug mode.

Do you mean they mixed up call by reference or by value? Who experienced similar problems during upgrade and how you solve it?

another question:

From "2.0.13.2 full package",

\modules\system\templates\system_comment.html
at line 25, it wrote

<{if $xoops_iscommentadmin == true}>

However, I trace back from "upgrade patch"
- xoops-2.0.7.x_to_2.0.9.2
- xoops-2.0.9.2-to-2.0.10
- xoops-2.0.10-to-2.0.12a
- xoops-2.0.12a-to-2.0.13
- xoops-2.0.13-to-2.0.13.1
- xoops-2.0.13.1-to-2.0.13.2, there is no change on this file, but my site's file wrote

<{if $xoops_isadmin == true}>


Should I missed something before, which one ($xoops_isadmin or $xoops_iscommentadmin ) is correct??

when upgrade from 2.0.9.2 to 2.0.10 (ignored /intall and /newbb files), many error messages appeared...

any help????


Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file include/functions.php line 490
Notice [PHP]: Only variables should be assigned by reference in file class/database/mysqldatabase.php line 236
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file class/database/mysqldatabase.php line 383
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file class/database/database.php line 128
Notice [PHP]: Only variables should be assigned by reference in file include/cp_functions.php line 57
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file kernel/object.php line 396
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file class/module.textsanitizer.php line 257
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file kernel/object.php line 289
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file kernel/config.php line 188
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file kernel/configitem.php line 108
Notice [PHP]: Only variable references should be returned by reference in file kernel/configitem.php line 97

"...Cannot modify header information..."
any helping hand here

Quote:

cannot refresh highscores... for details, read this
https://xoops.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1777&com_id=13989&com_rootid=13989&#comment13989

Anyone can help?

any progress for XOOPS core v2.0.10, anyone can tell...?

when will be 2.0.10 (as said) released?

I maynot help you but what langcode are you using for display? multi-bytes?

for example

Should consider to breakdown QA processes into phases...

01= kick start phase: module smoketest
02= invite module(s) to have smoketest, let them join & improve the smoketest
03= review and refinement
04= guidelines & documentations setup:
--- QA scope and standards
--- various template/samples; intallation/readme/user manual/test plan/report form, etc...
--- testing process
--- report and feedback process (ie. communicate before certify it)
--- certification process
05= real certification process start with some well known good quality modules
06= review and refinement
07= advise devloper for self-smoketest on their own module during development
08= certification process go ahead for all other modules
09= kick start for theme
10= kick start for Xoops2.1-2.2, smarty, php5
11= continueous review and refinement

Now, all your turns to add/update/delete above and fillup the ideas/details of each QA phase......

PS: smoketest kick start should be a simple assessment, not too complicate at the beginning

refer to ROADMAP:
General users maynot familiar with levels:A B C S U and then with certifier:1 2 3
I think "star levels" is much better for user imginations similar to Editor's mark at download.com.
Different "coloured star" or "icons-star" for certifier maybe better too since 1 2 3 showing a sequence or what...

Personally, I think "S" or "U" may have a negative feeling to the module, "No level" is better than that. And I suggest QA team should only start the cert-process after module owner approval (same as @brash), the "star" acts as a scheme/award. They spend much time on their own module, should have the chance to said 'NO' interest to join "star" award (as everyone, except themselve, is a 3rd party to judge)

I wonder if certifier 1 2 3 is a must or not (as foresee QA documents should guide all people to test it). Perhaps, Good point is it will give a sense of belongings and efforts appreciation to QA team/certifier.

PS: MarcoFr, your star ideas is not alone

I re-post my green ideas here (for easy reading and centralization)
https://xoops.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1956&com_id=13120&com_rootid=13120&#comment13120