Development Discussion Board

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.

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 ...

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...

The man's made the MOD, I'll check it later.

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...

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.

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

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).

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.

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