Matt

This was raised internally late last week, I don’t have any timelines to give you but it’s on our list.

Perfect yes. Let me ponder.

We had planned to remove the hosting support in 4.6, but we’ve given it a stay of execution and it will remain in 4.6.

We have no plans to develop the hosting management any further, though. 

Smells like a bug. I’ll file one for you.

You just made the thing up, so I don't think IPS has a definition for this. What's your definition? It's been a while since the nightmares surrounding what became of vBulletin stopped waking me up in cold sweats, but I think you may be referring to the number of members that are registered (the big number) and the number of members that have an active session, or are "online" right now (the smaller number).
If that's the case, you can add an online visitors block and a statistics block that will do this same thing. Log in as an administrator, click the little plus sign on the left, find and add your blocks away. I'm sorry but I don't remember what the block or blocks are called, but it's in there somewhere.
If you're wanting to move people into a group based on some conditions, the feature you're looking for is Group Promotions. The documentation for that lives here:
 

Makes sense. I'll make a note.

We've had this on our internal roadmap for a while, there isn't a set release or date, but it's something we do want to do.

Makes sense. I'll make a note.

Custom fields are not integrated in search snippet and activity streams, so that they look beautiful with the record image. For me, I would appreciate if we could apply option to the default record image field 😊

I do like the idea of node specific widgets thought.

I'm not convinced that Linux is best, but I do appreciate your warm and polite manner. 🙂
I'll take a look, it might be a caching issue, or a permission issue.

Brill. Thanks for the help 🙂

We are discussing this internally. 👍

I will do a video for you tomorrow. 

I can confirm WebP will be available in our next release (which is 4.6 btw) 🙂

I feel like anyone who lived through 1999-2006 feels the answer to "Do we need jQuery" is a strong yes.
Of course, we could remove jQuery.
What jQuery does is make life simpler for developers (as well as resolve a lot of cross browser quirks so developers don't have to think too hard about that). What that blog effectively advocates is the reversal of the number one rule of programming "be lazy". Functions and methods are reusable for a reason.

For an app as broad and as complex as ours, replacing jQuery with vanilla javascript isn't really viable. We have tens of thousands of lines of javascript code which will multiply into millions without reusable compact methods.

For a single page website, you probably could just about tolerate it, but honestly I question the effort even then; other than to feel happy as you sip a soy latte while stroking ones hipster beard before adding "Built with ❤️ in vanilla Javascript" in the footer.

We are discussing this internally. 👍

We are discussing this internally. 👍

I will do a video for you tomorrow. 

I will do a video for you tomorrow. 

The YouTube embeds come from YouTube themselves. It's not a third party dependency.

Yeah, I agree. We picked jQuery a good while ago. If we were starting from scratch, we might pick something lighter now.

I feel like anyone who lived through 1999-2006 feels the answer to "Do we need jQuery" is a strong yes.
Of course, we could remove jQuery.
What jQuery does is make life simpler for developers (as well as resolve a lot of cross browser quirks so developers don't have to think too hard about that). What that blog effectively advocates is the reversal of the number one rule of programming "be lazy". Functions and methods are reusable for a reason.

For an app as broad and as complex as ours, replacing jQuery with vanilla javascript isn't really viable. We have tens of thousands of lines of javascript code which will multiply into millions without reusable compact methods.

For a single page website, you probably could just about tolerate it, but honestly I question the effort even then; other than to feel happy as you sip a soy latte while stroking ones hipster beard before adding "Built with ❤️ in vanilla Javascript" in the footer.

I feel like anyone who lived through 1999-2006 feels the answer to "Do we need jQuery" is a strong yes.
Of course, we could remove jQuery.
What jQuery does is make life simpler for developers (as well as resolve a lot of cross browser quirks so developers don't have to think too hard about that). What that blog effectively advocates is the reversal of the number one rule of programming "be lazy". Functions and methods are reusable for a reason.

For an app as broad and as complex as ours, replacing jQuery with vanilla javascript isn't really viable. We have tens of thousands of lines of javascript code which will multiply into millions without reusable compact methods.

For a single page website, you probably could just about tolerate it, but honestly I question the effort even then; other than to feel happy as you sip a soy latte while stroking ones hipster beard before adding "Built with ❤️ in vanilla Javascript" in the footer.

Yeah, I agree. We picked jQuery a good while ago. If we were starting from scratch, we might pick something lighter now.