..AND..
What about next 2.2.x versions?
I mean, XOOPS Core Team discover a new security hole and there is the need of an urgent patch or there is a bugfix. This means that peoples who start to use XOOPS and need some feats of 2.2.x had to install 2.2.3a + 2.2.4 patch + 2.2.5security fix + 2.2.6 bug fixes + 2.2.N (where N can be a very high value.. look at the previous versions of xoops, 1.3 took 10 releases of bug fixes, 2.0 has arrived to .13.2)?

This is an HELL for Us, the community.

But hey, since the slogan of XOOPS is still 'Xoops is powered by you' what about if a guy take 2.2.3a, apply 2.2.4 patch and public release it? Maybe XOOPS Core call it a fork?

I've always trusted in the guys behind this great cms, and for what my time permit to me I've always tried to give back something to the community but hey.. Right now you're making me (and many peoples here in the community, I think) sick.

banned,

well i take your point banned when there is many bugfixes.. it would get too much hassle.. so yeah after a few bugfixes then it would be ideally suited to do a full package.. but i can't see the necessity when there's only 1 or 2 patches.. and in this case just the 1 patch and people are kicking up a fuss.. i still don't see the need or the necessity for a full release 2.2.4 version, it's 1 patch :S

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 from http://debcentral.org/downloads/xoops/

Feel free to use them however you like.

I think the big problem here is the lack of continuity and input from the community. Everything that has been said in the defence of not releasing a full 2.2.4 version has been made in the forums and comments. This should have been a public announcement of the way forward. Why is it that we have a 2.0.13.2 full release? Why not 2.0.13 + 2 bug fix releases?

Also if 2.2.X is labled as a development release, and new xoopsers are being advised to install 2.0.13.X then this should be clearly stated in 'Download xoops' and either 2.2.3 & 2.2.4 need to be removed from the block on the front page, or they should also be labled as 'dev release'.

Anytime a website like opensourcecms.com pulls you from the lineup, then there are major problems as a whole trying to promote xoops. What a bad day for xoops.

And the reason is:
Quote:

I understand the comments regarding all the commercial systems not releasing a new version every time a patch is released, but I thought as open sorcerers we were supposed to be better than them? And to be fair to Linux distros, although their lastest releases do not contain all the patches, every night my Linux system will install all new stable patches without me even having to click a button (using yum nightly) XOOPS does not auto update after installation, so really a full package should be provided for first time installs.

Obviously all the CMS's that are installed on opensourcecms.com are providing a full package, else they would be pulled and have the same message as XOOPS does 'no full release of their newest version'

Ok, I'll jump off the soapbox now.

I do NOT think that what m0nty is saying is arrogant nonsense. I think that yes, this situation is shifty. Yes, losing a listing on opensourcecms is a little bit of a black eye for XOOPs. And yes, full releases that can live out in the wild are preferable to patches.

But as someone who is not a developer, but just a webmaster taking advantage of a great open-source creation, I'm grateful that when problems do arise, solutions are quickly offered, even if they aren't completely plug-and-play. And black eyes go away pretty quickly.

XOOPs had a number of headaches in the last year and endured them because the community showed some solidarity. There are going to be patches and bug-fixes and security updates. I know that, however they occur, I just have to deal with them.

Now. That said, I do wish that I had realized that 2.2.3 was not intended for production sites. Maybe this was mentioned somewhere, but I didn't see it when I installed. Maybe someone can answer this:

If my version of 2.2.3 was released on 10/30/05 and is labeled "2.2.3 FINAL," is it 2.2.3a ? (Does "a" signify "final?") I can't find anything anywhere that tells me. If not, do I have to wait for 2.4 ? Should I use the "XOOPS 2.2.3 to 2.0.x" downgrade script? What's the recommended course of action?

***UPDATE*** Never mind. I installed the patch and life seems to be fine still.

Now it possible that I was lost in the whirlwind contained within this forum... but if 2.2 is a "dead horse" will there be a update(patch) to the next stable version....

if not let it be know to the world. I am very active here and I see almost everything that goes down. Strangely enough I never noticed that DEV didn't suggest going with the latest "final version" I thought it was quite the opposite.

2.0 would no longer be patched

and the most current and SECURE version was to move to 2.2

Its been months now, and I am concerned that all the work will be for not.

I undestand that 2.2 was intended to be a developement version, but when i hear the word developement I think of nurturing and growth, not shameless abandonment.

!!Please!! won't someone please correct me on this.

The devs have gone back to 2.0 in order to continue the development on to 2.3-2.4. In other words, they had to take a step back in order to move forward, as 2.2 was not heading to the right direction.

The two branches will merge at 2.4. Hence no upgrade is supposed to be available from 2.2 to 2.3, only from 2.2 to 2.4.

so that if you want to upgrade to 2.3 when the devs put out a stable version, you will need 2.0 to upgrade to it.

So far as I've picked up.

2.3 will always be a developer version (beta) the next stable release (from my understanding) will be 2.4. (Odd for developer release, even for stable release.)