I'm sorry to say I agree that there should be a full 2.2.4 release. I am just setting up a new site, and decided to go 2.2.X with this one, and had to install 2.2.3 then upgrade to 2.2.4 which seemed kinda silly.

Quote:
If this is correct then it would be very easy to make a full 2.2.4 release.

I also agree that a full 2.2.4 version should be released. For people building a new site it doesn't make sense to ask them to install 2.2.3 then patch to 2.2.4.
2.2 has a lot of good features and a clear signal for it's support would be to release 2.2.4 full version. I've personally been using it and I highly recommend it. Plus it's been as stable for me as has been 2.0.13

Quote:

no need to do that..

why install 2.2.3 and upgrade to 2.2.4??

just install 2.2.4..

do that

extract 2.2.3, next you extract the 2.2.4 patch to the folder of 2.2.3.

done, you have a 2.2.4 to a fresh install.
just copy to the server now.


it's easy,.

agreed, it's easy to do without installing 1st.. thats why the install folder is in the patch for that very reason > updating your 2.2.3 zip package. then you can install it as 2.2.4 and not 2.2.3.

i know many projects that work this way. non of their users have issues with it..

afterall it only takes a few mins and a few clicks of a mouse..

but i think if XOOPS are going this route then a rethink of the versioning system oughta be carried out..

in essence from previous discussions on versioning..

2.2.3 should never have been labelled final with an odd number behind it.

the version should have stayed at 2.2 and the patches afterwards would have incremented by .1 etc to show that they are patches for the final version.. before a further 2.4 release..

2.3 being a development version not for production site use!! people oughta start getting used to that.. 2.4 will be the final stable version, all the rest in between except for the .x are patches for the final version.

in a sense this is what XOOPS has done.. but people aren't seeing it as like that.. they are seeing every .1 patch released as a NEW VERSION.. when in fact it isn't, it's a patch for the 2.2 version.. every software comnpany i know of works like this why should XOOPS have to release full versions again because the users can't spend 2 minutes to implemnt patches.. I think some clearness needs to be documented on what versions are and what patches are..

what i am basically saying here is: 2.2 is the final version, and every version after with a .1 or .2 or .3 is a patch release for bugs discovered/fixed after it's release.. 2.2.3 should never have been released as a full package.. just the patches.. 2.4 release should contain all patches and fixes from inbetween 2.2 and 2.4 thus, making 2.4 the new final version. hence the only full packages available then would be: 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8 and so on & on.

Thanks for your input m0nty.

It is very unclear at the moment what is what to the end user. XOOPS 2.2.3 is labled as a final version and XOOPS 2.2.4 as a bug fix release, but there is nothing to suggest that these are development as in Beta or RC (and as far as I knew, 2.2.3 was a stable release).

If it's so easy to overwrite the 2.2.3 code with the 2.2.4 to create a full fresh install, then really this should be done to make things as easy as possible to the end user.

As m0nty said, to go the other route would mean complete restructuring not just a comment in the 2.2.4 news thread saying 'We're not making a full package for 2.2 anymore. Only these patch releases.'

also i was just thinking..

the 1st patch after a final release obviously contains fixes to files in the final release.

the 2nd patch released should only contain files changed from the previous patch and not contain all files that weren't edited in the new patch.. i can see some arguments arising tho with this comment.. i'll try to break it down.

final release:

patch 1 contains 5 edited files (file 1, file 2, file 3, file 4 and file 5)

patch 2 contains 6 files that were fixed. 3 of these fixes include edits to files done from patch 1.

file 1, file 2 & file 3.. file 6, 7 & 8 are newly fixed

so the patch 2 should include fixes from patch 1 (file 1, 2 & 3)combined with the new fixes.

patch 3 released containing only 4 files that were fixed and non of them were files that were from patch 1 or 2. so we have file 9, 10, 11 & 12... this patch should only contain the new edited files and not the previous patched files because they weren't changed from the previous patch.

patch 4 released and contains 6 fixed files. non of those were files belonging to patch 3 but 2 were files from patches 1 & 2.. so we have File 1, File 2, File 13, 14, 15, 16.

file 1 & 2 should contain the fixes from patch 2 (as they include fixes from patch 1) 13, 14, 15 & 16 are new.. we don't need to touch files 3 - 12 as they weren't touched in this fix. so they weren't in this patch

this although would make it so that you have to apply all patches as they come out.. ok nothing wrong there.. but if each patch contains all files from previous patches, those who have hacked their sites (which may include hacking of files in the patches) would have to keep redoing their hacks.. if the patch only contains the fixed files for that particular patch, then the user would only have to hack those files again instead of having to rehack all the others again) (have i said that clear enough? or have i confused you)

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?

i don't think it makes XOOPS look bad at all.. as said previously, patches are a part of software development, and just because a patch is released does not mean a full version HAS to be demanded aswell..

do you demand this of debian linux or microsoft windows?

can you tell me what leading software company has software available where once installed you DON'T have to further install more patches afterwards?

why does everyone expect XOOPS to not be like every other project outthere?

come on guys, you say it's simple to do, so fair enough, what's wrong with just doin it yourselves instead of relying on XOOPS devs to do everything for you. (not pointing fingers, just a general observation). is it so difficult for some1 to just unzip a file click a few mouse clicks and then hey presto? the sheer notion that everything can be done for you in web design is ludicrous.. if you want to design/develop/maintain and run a website, then there are things you HAVE to do and learn yourself otherwise in my opinion you should not be a webmaster. in reality the more people get everything done for them, the more they come to expect that everything can and will be done for them..

share some of the burden and try and help yourselfs every once in a while.. and 2 mins out of your time to patch a zip file is not a lot to ask really.

y is 2.2.4 full package needed anyway? simple question. there is not going to be anymore development on the 2.2.3 release in it's present form.. people are recommended not to use 2.2.3/4 from now on unless you really need the features..

2.3 is not using 2.2.4 core system, it's a dead horse as to speak.. so use 2.0.x series and leave the 2.2.4 patch for those that have already got 2.2.3. those that haven't have no need to.

2.2.4 is a bug-fix for 2.2.3

It is not a full release. 2.2.3 is the full release.

2.3 may possibly be the next full release...?

Monty, quite frankly this is arrogant nonsense.

Many people designing websites using FREE CMS's are beginners - who want to be able to install one file, and start learning from there. Why not have the patch AND a patched version.

If you don't make it easy you will lose many potential users.



P.S. Perhaps you should make it obvious on the home page that you recommend that people DON'T download the latest version.... (2.2.3/4)