Search found 126 matches

by rxu
Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:04 pm
Forum: [3.x] Rejected RFCs
Topic: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Replies: 238
Views: 253782

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Marshalrusty wrote:I would, however, still prefer for it to be available with the 3.0.x => 3.1 updater
Surely, if we'd decide to keep subsilver2 code up to date with 3.1, I think it's automatic update from 3.0.x to 3.1.x wouldn't be a problem.
by rxu
Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:54 pm
Forum: [3.x] Rejected RFCs
Topic: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Replies: 238
Views: 253782

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

I am still against the idea of dropping support for a style that is used by a large portion of the community. Part of the idea of 3.1 (as opposed to 4.0) is that a large portion of backwards compatibility is maintained. In this case we can do the following. Keep the decision of dropping subsilver2 ...
by rxu
Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:55 pm
Forum: [3.1/Ascraeus] Merged RFCs
Topic: [RFC|Accepted] Support of SQLite 3.0+
Replies: 13
Views: 29772

[RFC|Accepted] Support of SQLite 3.0+

This RFC is partially brought about [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL request. We really need 3.1 to support SQLite3 to meet modern requirements and satisfy users which are up to date with new versions of SQLite DBMS. There's an approach by Boris Berdichevski that could be also considered: Support of SQL...
by rxu
Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:23 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL
Replies: 35
Views: 42817

Re: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL

The man's made the MOD, I'll check it later.
by rxu
Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:13 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Attachments update
Replies: 1
Views: 4626

[RFC] Attachments update

Attachments system we have currently intends only replacing of files in case you need to update it for some reason. In other words, you have to delete an old file and then upload new one, meaning that you get absolutely different attachment as a result. That also means you're going to loose the link...
by rxu
Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:42 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL
Replies: 35
Views: 42817

Re: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL

He's answered: he'll work to make the MOD next week and he'd be glad if the feature could be included into the next phpBB release.
by rxu
Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:42 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL
Replies: 35
Views: 42817

Re: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL

Well, I guess it wouldn't be too difficult for me to ask him to try make a MOD in according to MODDB policy.
It seems that he doesn't absolutely understand what you evil3 and tumba25 are meaning in that topic :)
by rxu
Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:20 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Make regdate display more convenient
Replies: 13
Views: 13839

Re: Make regdate display more convenient

There was a MODs for phpBB2 and phpBB3 changing registered date to something like (for example) "Joined: 3 years 11 month 24 days ago" (time levels can vary, f.e. you're able to cut days/months and vice versa).
by rxu
Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:08 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL
Replies: 35
Views: 42817

Re: [RFC] PDO / third party DBAL

A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:There's no one working on an sqlite3 DBAL layer
Well, ~2 years ago one of our board members has posted working approach for phpBB 3.0.x sqlite3 support (the page is in Russian, but can be translated) :)
AFAIK he keeps it up to date; never tested it, but the man says it's working.
by rxu
Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:52 am
Forum: [3.1/Ascraeus] Merged RFCs
Topic: [RFC|Accepted] Coding Guideline Modifications
Replies: 79
Views: 91408

Re: [RFC] Coding Guideline Modifications

Allowing both variants would be inconsistent imho. I'd suggest to leave the first one:

Code: Select all

$foo = new bar();