Mark

Well it doesn't seem as far along as it should be this long after beta 4. And even if beta 5 is released soon, look at how many bugs are still in it! So it would guarantee too many bugs being in RC1 or it would mean a beta 6 and if there's a sixth beta that's just kind of ridiculous because not only would there have already been 5 other betas, but each one was tested much longer than these used to be tested for IPB. I mentioned the skin bugs seemingly rarely addressed and even since I said that not even 1/3 of those remaining ones have eben fixed in weeks since that point. Sigh.

Do you even have access to the betas? I thought you opted to not renew your license? In which case, are you just going by the count in the bug tracker? There are always bugs in the bug tracker - at the moment we're in QA stages so we have people whose job it is to look for bugs, of course bugs are going to be found - that doesn't mean the software is unusably buggy.

And we know there's a big gap between beta 4 and beta 5, the reason is because we want everything ready for beta 5 before we move into RC - we don't want new things being added in the RC stages, obviously and so things like help files, final changes needed for the components, finishing the MSSQL driver, making sure we're XHTML valid etc are being done before beta 5 is released. Hence all the "4.1" and "4.2" - in the past these would have been new betas (they're new builds) but what we want to be beta 5 isn't ready.

Okay.. just a few things.

First, is there a reason these forums go down every evening/night (British Time)?

Yes :)

We run daily backups

:rolleyes:

Brandon said "I'll simply say that our target release date is before June." - that is quite different to "Our target release date is in June." which is how it looks like some people read it.

And people wonder why we don't like to mention dates....

Me too. From what I heard, it will be released as a community project once IPB 3 is released. What I believe that means is, on the day of release, a working component of the subscription manager will be available for you to download. Additionally, the subscription manager will be released as an "open project" which will allow third party developers to work and improve the existing system.

If I am mistaken with anything I said above, I hope a staff member can correct it.

That is the plan

I'm kind of expecting InVision to continue support for IPB2 for a while, and waiting for an announcement on this. A lot of customers seem to like their mods and these are going to need serious review and changes to work with IPB3. For those who think they will still want to mod the actual code, then they still don't have their hands [officially] on unencoded source yet.

And there are those who are tied into hosts who are resistant to upgrading their servers to run PHP5, required by IPB3.

We will continue providing tech support for 2.3.6 for the forseeable future, but there will be no more updates.

While obviously I haven't looked into this fully, nor do I have say over what features are added - I think it may be a little more complicated than you are thinking, this is just off the top of my head:

1) Searching - the search engine would probably need a bit of a rewrite to accommodate this
2) Permissions - what if they have permission for the alternate forum, but not the main one? Can they see the topic in the alternate forum? If no, it would be too resource intensive to work, if yes, well then, we have a bit of a permissions problem...
3) Moving - what if the thread is moved? Does it move from the forum it is moved from? Or both? What happens if you try to move the topic in the alternate forum to the main one? The move function would have to be rewritten a bit however that is decided.
4) Deleting - if you delete one, does the other delete? The delete function would have to be rewritten a bit.
5) What if someone wants to add an alternate forum after posting? We'd need something to accommodate that.
6) What if someone wants to remove the alternate forum after posting? Even worse, what if someone wants to remove the main forum and make the alternate forum the main forum? We'd need something to accommodate that.


Personally, I think it would be a bit of hassle for a bit of strange feature - in what circumstance would you need this? There might be a better solution, such as allowing announcements to have replies, maybe?

Guys... relax. We're not going to get a team of lawyers to sue you and send repo men to your house to collect money for damages because you used "invisionpower" in your domain.

If you want to use "invisionpower" in the domain, submit a ticket in the client area and we'll send it to the management who can discuss the situation further. Like Lindy said, creating resource sites is appreciated, and we're going to be working with you to defend our trademarks, not against you :)

We were actually talking something similar to this the other day. I'm not sure if it will actually happen - but I'll shift this over to the feedback forum so the right people see it.

Well… I guess no matter what and how many people want it, you won’t do it.

For me personally, it’s a very useful future. Also I don’t believe it’s sO hard to do it… no body ask for “special effects”

And editing the post is 'one of them'? You can also edit the post without “ajex”!

I hope you will understand the benefit of this future…

Time will come and you will include it anyway )

Just because you would like it doesn't mean everyone does.


In my opinion, AJAX is fantastic when it is done right. Not only is it good aesthetically, it has useful practical applications (such as the aforementioned video scenario). Unfortunately, it is rarely done right when there is a lot of information to process. There are so many different browsers which handle it slightly differently, it's a nightmare to code, confusing for the user when it doesn't work (but most likely submitted the content, just not returned it) and often done for little more than the sake of it.
Even sometimes when I post a comment on YouTube, the submit button greys out and gets stuck on "Posting..." (or whatever it says) - then if I reload, sometimes its there, sometimes its not, maybe that's because the person posting the video has comment moderation enabled? Who knows? Not the user ;)

After just dealing with complaints about the liberals I allow to post on my site, I thought of another thing that is really needed. :D An upgrade of sorts to the ignore feature.

When users are placed on ignore by others, their comments can still be read if an unignored user quotes them, which happens every day on my board. So, you can't really ignore the people you want to.

ETA: And maybe an admin/moderator abilty to be able to force users to ignore each other and to make it so they can't "peek" at the posts of the ignored.

I really like this idea, but it is very hard to implement - I even tried making a mod at one point, but it just had too many drawbacks:
The only way one could really do it would be to add a tag if the reply or multi-quote button was used with the quoted person's ID in - which isn't hard but, someone could always copy and paste another persons post (which isn't feasible to be filtering out) - and what if someone quotes several posts in their reply, but you are only ignoring one? It would be difficult to not show half of a persons post...

Let me rephrase that: upgrading would be a mess. Especially as it's so critical to get right (IT Crowd reference: "You don't want to end up in the middle of invalid memory!") and such a difficult thing to test - the only way to test it would be to create a test site filled with fake data, logging the way everything should be, running the upgrader and checking it all converted properly; and doing that is going to be very easy to make a mistake, or miss something. Unless there is some major compelling reason that they should never be used that I'm not aware of (if there is, please share: You didn't say why comma separated strings are so bad) I'd much rather know that the upgrader isn't going to be undertaking database structure changes for the sake of it.

Hopefully v 3 will have no comma separated strings in the database.

What's so bad about comma separated strings?
If they used linking tables for everything that is comma-separated or serialised, the database would be a mess.

Completely reimplemented bbcode engine that doesn't use regexes.

How do you suggest it is done?
And why not use regexes? They work fine...

Would be helpful if custom profile fields were passed to on_create_account. The only way to get that data now is to add $fields->out_fields to the function call in action_public/register.php and action_admin/member.php

Just thought I'd let you know all the Nexus modules have a license agreement when you go to download it except the hosting one.