Just because the source forge site isnt updated - it doesnt mean that work has stopped.. quite the opposite.

And I don't believe that I've seen any users posting any feedback on the SF forum yet in regards to testing of 2.2.5rc2 - which means:

a) it works fine
or b) people can't be bothered to give feedback

Or c) people are hesitant to use it because
1. their sites are working fine - for now.
2. concerns about upgrading - particularly in light of the problems experienced with the 2.2 series in general

I think wizanda has it running on one of his sites. According to him, things seem to be going well.

Fair point

Anyway... i'll be surprised if one of the relvent people hasn't seen this post - so perhaps we'll see something posted soon?

ok, XOOPS coreteam had done much work than we had learned about, but , why not put it to public, if code, why not update svn, if document why not post it here？

i cant image any reason for keeping their works so secret

to david12: it seems u learn a lot, can u give us more details about the status of XOOPS dev? 3x

Quote:

Actually, you should ask phppp about the 2.2.5 status. He's the developer who took on the task of releasing the update release for XOOPS 2.2.4. ANd xuser, since you're chinese just like phppp, you have easy access to that information.

Bytheway, the XOOPS project on sf.net ranks pretty high, so it probably isn't dead. But you're right, we haven't seen many updates in the svn recently.

But we knew this would happen:
1. when 2.0.16 was released, it was announced as the last 2.0.x release. Also, it was announced that development would focus on the next generation XOOPS code.
2. There have been 2 alpha releases for the 2.3 code branch. The community response to those releases was absolutely minimal. Judging by that, you could say that the XOOPS project was dead. It showed however, that the 'develop in public, try to involve as many people as possible, give everyone a chance to show their (hidden) talents' approach wasn't working. So, the developers now work privately and release whenever they feel it is right. The benefit of this could be that they release stuff that others can work with and build on, not just read along.
3. If, by pure chance and sheer luck, you're a talented developer and want to pool your talents with the rest of the core developers, please do contact phppp, skalpa and/or rowd about this.

So: the status of 2.2.x is in short: not recommended for new users, maitenance releases only, RC release published, but very little actual feedback on the RC.

Ask phppp to make it final, as the very last of the 2.2 series of XOOPS releases. If that makes you feel better

Herko

As to the lack of svn activity regarding XOOPS 2.30 i´d like to add that its not about developing privately but instead there will be quite some fundamental changes / preparations for future versions to make which have to be properly laid out and thought through before putting them into actual code. So there is currently quite some work on paper going on before getting back into svn. (which should see the more activity once this is done)

So i actually do appreciate the lack of files being thrown into 2.30 svn at the moment knowing that what is about to come will have hand and foot and not just be coded as one moves along.

(note: this reply is only about 2.30>)

Quote:

The version convention has always stumped me, however I do have a site running 2.2.4, I want to move on with the site, what are my options?

IF 2.2.5 gets done, what will be the upgrade path from there if any?

IF there is no upgrade path from 2.2.5, HOW then do I get back to something that I can upgrade with?

You will be able to move back to the main path around 2.4 - when both branches will be combined again.

Quote:

that information has been mentioned lots of times in news articles and on the forum.

but for the sake of another argument, i'll say it yet again!

the upgrade path from 2.2.5 will have to wait for XOOPS 2.4

xoops 2.0.16 will be upgradable to XOOPS 2.3

both will merge at 2.4

so if you want to upgrade to 2.3 then you should be using the 2.0.x branch instead of 2.2.x branch.

i s'pose we'll have more reruns (repeats) in another few months time.. bit like sky tv.

Quote:

vaughan, thank you, I've read it so many times in so many ways it was confusing me. That is what I thought as far as the branches coming back together. I haven't been on the forums too much as of late and after some searching and not coming up with a good explaniation I'd thought I'd ask 'again'

J