bfarber

As I said in another topic, the upgrade package would essentially be every single file (there were just a lot of bugs fixed between 3.0.0 and 3.0.1) so we didn't feel it was worth the trouble.

Unfortunately, for 3.0.0 -> 3.0.1, that would be virtually every single file. ;)

You have an excellent point to be honest. I wouldn't have looked at that suggestion twice if it was submitted through the ticket system, but there are obviously a lot of people who agree since it was posted here, so I'm forced to reconsider my stance. Even if I don't think it has any value, features are driven by customer demand.

Upgrading 3.0.0 to 3.0.1 should not be a totally different product, no. However upgrading 2.x.x to 3.x.x effectively IS a new product. It's just like upgrading Windows 98 to Windows 2000. Or Windows XP to Windows Vista. Someone will like it, some won't, and there's always 2.3.6 (Windows XP) if you don't like the newest release. :) I realize it's too late for you, nor are we suggesting you downgrade. I'm just pointing out that newer versions are not guaranteed to work identical to older versions. If a feature doesn't work out, or isn't very useful for the majority, there's not much point including it. If there's something totally cool we want to include, we may do so.

Moved to IP.Board feedback as this wasn't really company feedback

I never called anyone "stupid". Please don't put words in my mouth. My main point was, if you preferred 2.3.6 over 3.0.0, you were free to continue using it. :) They are different versions, with different user interfaces, different features. Some things in 2.3 we did not feel added value to the software and did not retain (for instance, the "My Assistant" feature). We added other features that we did feel added value. The packages are not the same, and one should not expect that the update will look and work identical to an older version. It's the nature of updates.

Yeah, there's a switch - it's in your usercp

My assistant feature was purposefully removed Moderating team link is in same spot and *nearly* the same size as it was in 2.3.x. If you think it should be made bigger, that's what the skin system is for. For our default skin, we didn't feel that was a hugely important feature that needed a gigantic link on the index page. There is a list of moderators - the moderating team link. And private messages now have an ACTUAL report feature. You as an admin can control which groups can access each type of reported content. If members don't want your entire staff reading pms, limit pm reports so that only admins can view and address them. If your members would rather forward the pm, they can copy the contents and start a new conversation with a moderator. They can invite a moderator to an existing conversation. You have 3 options now, where in IPB 2 you only had 1. All I gather from your suggestions is you are resistant to change and want IPB 3 to be IPB 2. I'm afraid IPB3 is not IPB2, and likely won't be in the future.

Perhaps you should go refresh again? :whistle:

I'm not sure what you are referring to, to be honest. There was no report private message function in IPB 2 at all. There is now. If your members used to just forward the PM, they can now invite a moderator to the conversation, which accomplishes the same goal.

Bug fix regression that he spotted and sorted, as I recall.

Where did you obtain them? What license are they available under?

That's a very hard question to answer....and we've had mixed reports. Many say it's less resource intensive, while some have seen increased resource usage. I can say we've identified a few "issues" in 3.0.0, corrected for 3.0.1, that can cause excessive resource usage in 3.0. 1) Sessions weren't clearing if you use PHP 5.1. This causes the sessions table to continuously build up, which slows things down. We've fixed the shutdown function registration to support both 5.1 and 5.2 in 3.0.1. 2) If you watch a lot of topics, or auto-subscribe to topics you reply to for example, this could cause the board index to slow down with the watched content hook installed. We've added a limit in 3.0.1 to the query. 3) The queries run on the portal were a bit slow. Optimized for 3.0.1 and a patch released in the customer lounge. 4) The view new content queries were rather slow. Optimized for 3.0.1. It all depends on how many people are online, how much data in your database, which features are enabled and actually used, etc. :) Overall, you probably won't notice a huge difference either way, unless you run into one of the aforementioned bugs.

Well, this brings up an "interesting" point though (not to go too far off topic). I'm sure there are plenty of features in vB that aren't in IPB (and vice-versa). Would you say this is the single most important one that converting users want? Say we had time to add one feature in IPB3.1 ... would this be the feature you'd request?

It depends on your definition of "wastes". I think one of the goals Rikki was going for was to NOT jam pack icons and text and stuff into every square inch of your screen. Many people find that confusing (myself included). That's easily changed by a custom skin though (which could reduce padding and margin, and move elements around to condense areas a bit more).

You're regretting your purchase because you can't allow moderators to ban members? :huh: I guess everyone has their important features.... :) Unfortunately I cannot say when or if this feature will be added. I can tell you it won't be in 3.0.1. Beyond that, I have no idea I'm afraid. Features are generally added in major point releases (e.g. 3.1.0), of which we just made one. It would probably be a little while before the next major feature release is out there, since we're still working on clearing out bugs from 3.0.0.

Whoa, what's with the hostility. I assume you missed what I read so I'll restate it. Please take note of the keyword in the sentence above. ;)

See, allowing moderators to ban a member is a slippery slope I'm sure many admins aren't comfortable with. We've traditionally felt that actions that actually alter a member account are best left to the admin control panel, which a moderator can't access. Of course each admin has their own wishes/way of running things. Personally I think it's best to leave banning to the admins myself.

While I'd like to add a way for users who were banned but have warnings to be able to view them/acknowledge them, I don't think an entirely new system is needed for such a feature. There are different ways of doing things because different people like to do things different ways. For instance, for your last question, no - no one would be able to tell the user is banned. Which is exactly what some people wanted - ban a user without having to move them into a special banned users group. :)

"Suspended" is a temporary ban. Instead of suspending the user, you could instead move them to another user group that had the restrictions you wish (can only access certain forums). As for banning, there are many different methods of banning in IPB. You can move the users to a Banned user group, mark the user "Banned" from the ACP (which won't change their group, but will prevent accessing the board), ban the email, username or IP address in the ban filters, or suspend the user, for example. It depends on what method you use. If you move the user to the banned group, they cannot access the board. If you mark the user as banned from the edit member page in the ACP, their group will not change, but they still won't be able to access the board.

Well, if you want "most" bugs fixed we're already there. :) There's around 50 open bugs roughly (not counting FFFV reports) and 241 fixed bugs in 3.0.1. ;)

What "spelling" folder are you referring to?

We can never fix "all" bugs in any particular release. Every day we come in, there's more new bugs reported. If we tried to have all open bugs resolved, you'd never get 3.0.1 released. I've said this before, but I'll reiterate - people shouldn't get hung up on the raw number of bugs. It means nothing. Hardcoded text is reported as a bug, but for the majority of our users that's not an issue. Importing a language pack using windows-2943692837 when the original translator used iso-8859-1927889237 doesn't convert correctly in 3.0.0 - again, for the majority of our users this doesn't matter. There will be bugs reported but not yet fixed when 3.0.1 is released, I'm positive of that.

I don't even know what to say to this.... @Nimdock, there's a tool included in the downloads under the Tools folder that you can use at the commandline to rebuild the posts faster.

I'm looking into it.