bfarber

1) This was reported as a bug, and should be fixed for #3 2) The issue only crops up when you import the *same feed* more than once - you can import multiple separate feeds, but we never really planned for someone to import one feed multiple times into their forums.

Please report bugs to the bug tracker.

Exactly. We will look at feature suggestions when we begin work on 3.1 or whatever. We will see a beta 5, yes. That is the plan right now at least.

We don't try to keep the features different or similar to any other specific product. We try to keep the features in line with what is requested by the majority of our customers. However, we are at a beta 4 stage and are not introducing new functionality where possible, so I'm afraid any new features will have to wait until the next version.

If you can reproduce a bug on this site, it definitely should be reported. A lot of times, especially skin/javascript issues, it's because we fiddle with the skins here and they're not always up to date) but it should be noted nevertheless.

Well, things change I'm afraid. ;) We expected to get beta 5 out really quickly, but decided to hold it back internally to take care of other things (and to fix bugs we've found...e.g. the skin system bugs I reported yesterday). I can't go into details for obvious reasons, but we have plans internally, and sometimes they change. I said we *expected* a much quicker turn around time between beta 4 and 5 (based on those plans) and that was the reason we didn't plan to refresh beta 4 with the language XML files. I DID post those language XML files for anyone who installs beta 4 to import, so it's not like beta 4 is not testable. And keep in mind - our primary goal here is to get testing done so we can release a solid and stable product. That's our number one goal. Giving modders time to work on stuff to get ready for release and so forth is a nice side effect where possible, but that's not going to drive our release schedule.

I'm afraid you're simply missing something. ;) For instance, your site might be using the class_db_mysqli_client.php file - in which case the edit wouldn't do anything. You really need to post in the peer to peer forums to get help with this sort of thing.

Right after the last } in your code you posted you'd add mysql_query( "SET NAMES utf8", $this->connection_id );

For the record, I don't think Rikki is keeping the light blue bar. ;) Guess we'll have to wait and see. I know he plans on keeping the CSS class in place, however, so skinners can duplicate what you see now without modifying the HTML code.

You have to modify either class_db_mysql_client or class_db_mysqli_client (depending on which one your server uses) so that right after mysql_connect or mysqli_connect you run either mysql_query( "SET NAMES utf8", $this->connection_id ) OR mysqli_query( $this->connection_id, "SET NAMES utf8" ), depending on the file.

While we may test some things in beta releases of browsers, we can never properly support a browser beta release. They have their own bugs which we shouldn't be attempting to correct for. When FF 3.1 or 3.5 or whatever version they decide to slap on it is released final, we will of course correct any problems within IPB that affect functionality in the new release. Until then, we have to code for Firefox 3.0, as it's the current stable release. As for why skin bugs aren't worked through as quickly as others - there are several reasons 1) There's one designer and 3 backend developers 2) A lot of the remaining skin bugs are much more challenging to correct than earlier bug reports. Sometimes one bug can take several hours to correct, or requires huge amounts of code to be refactored to correct. 3) Rikki has other work to attend to simultaneously (such as the lofi skin) which may not be listed in the bug tracker, but still needs to be done and takes time.

You have to run a query after the mysql connection is established. SET NAMES utf8 In IPB3 you can edit conf_global.php to tell it to do this - in 2.3 you need to modify the database driver to do this.

2.1 -> 2.2 was a point release. 2.2 -> 2.3 was a point release. 2.3 -> 3.0 is a *major version* release That's what's different. The underlying code architecture for 2.1 -> 2.2, and 2.2 -> 2.3 did not change much. We had an ipsclass.php file with most of the functions. Folder structure was the same. The biggest changes were various features and bug fixes. 3.0 is virtually a complete rewrite, with an entirely rewritten architecture, and as such it takes longer than a minor point release. We have never given any specific expectation as to when new versions will be available, outside of official date estimates (which are estimates only). I apologize if you believed there would be a summer release this past summer of 2.4 or 3.0, however there's nothing we've done specifically to give you that expectation. :)

No, why would it? This is a BIG update, not a minor point release. It takes a lot more time to develop such a release. A lot of what we have done with 3.0 is specifically worked to make it easier to build updates and new features quicker in the future.

What's going to force the IT departments to upgrade however? If web developers continuing working overtime to try to make these fancy new apps work on IE6, IT department has no incentive to ever upgrade their browser status. Unfortunately, it's going to take a push from everywhere....but it seems like everyone doesn't want to be "the first" (and we're hardly the first...)

Exactly. killswitch - I see you telling someone else not to skim your posts, but perhaps take some of your own advice and not skim mine. :) I never said release would be in June. In fact, if we released tomorrow (which we're not) it would be before June, and my statement would be perfectly accurate. We don't know exactly when we will release. Contrary to what some here believe, we also do not base our release dates on our competition. We are setting goals for ourselves to release the software in a stable, working, reliable and secure way for our customers. If that means holding back the release for "6 months" from our original plan to ensure that everything is fully functional, stable and secure - so be it. This is a huge release, a big rewrite from the 2.3 series, and we are aiming to do it right, not "fast".

Uh, you misread my post. I said before June, not in June. Additionally, we absolutely cannot release the forum upgrade without the components. Customers have purchased these components from us and it is our responsibility to ensure there are compatible versions available for the new version of the forums.

I'll simply say that our target release date is before June. Targets are hit sometimes, and missed others, but we're winding down now with bug reports. Largely the bug reports we've been getting lately are simply duplicates.

IPB 3.0 will not feature tagging. A future version likely will.

As far as I know (though admittedly I haven't researched), vBulletin is the only forum that does what you are suggesting. I think it's safe to say that the consensus amongst the developers here (myself included) is that we do not wish to change any of the links to load the post separately. It is very easy to cause confusion when a post is shown by itself, and outside the context of the thread in which it was made. Overall we prefer the linking functionality we have in place as it is.

We also can't develop our software solely around the capabilities of developing countries. While we try to cater to as many people as possible, the fact is that most of our customers are from countries where the ability to download IE7 is not an issue. I still remember downloading Win XP SP1 over dialup - it can be done if someone has the desire. ;)

1) You can assign a stylesheet using special comments in templates that IE reads include ie6 stylesheet here <![endif]--> <!--[if lt IE 7]> 2) IPB3 supports assigning a skin to a user based on their user agent already. No need for a modification or anything there. 3) IPB3's user agent support is greatly enhanced - IPB already stores the browser properties (so the detection part is done).

It's a "must" for a relatively small niche set of forums. I have yet to *use* a forum of any software that truly utilized such a feature tbh. That said, we've simply had other priorities. We may or may not add such a feature in the future, but it wasn't considered a must-have for 3.0.

Firstly, I assure you, boards.nbc.com is pretty heavily customized all in all. Trust me - I've done a lot of work on it. ;) At the end of the day, pushing support for IE6 for another year does JUST that, and we would be having this same discussion then (just like this discussion came up a year ago, and when IE7 first came out - those points we did agree it was too early to move away from IE6).

Absolutely none of our corporate customers use our default skin, so this argument is irrelevant. It is possible to make a consistent skin if you want to (albeit likely without all the flashiness in the current skin).