[RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Note: We are moving the topics of this forum and it will be deleted at some point

Publish your own request for comments/change or patches for the next version of phpBB. Discuss the contributions and proposals of others. Upcoming releases are 3.2/Rhea and 3.3.
User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions package description format

Post by brunoais » Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:01 pm

^
For now: +1.
Seems like it's complete to pass to other ones to check if there are things missing

User avatar
naderman
Consultant
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:11 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions package description format

Post by naderman » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:48 pm

I think that "Current" prefixes to a string author type are superfluous. I'm fine with adding previous or former, if you want to indicate they did not actually author anything in the current version, but that just seems odd. It's an author tag, not a maintainer tag. So it doesn't mean that someone is currently maintaining the package, but that they were an author at the time the package was published like that. And even if someone no longer contributes they remain an author unless all their contributions have actually been deleted. So I'd prefer that we do not mandate and prefixing like that for author types.

Also please don't post specifications as PDFs. This is a web project. Post them on the wiki if you like or here in BBCode, but not as PDFs.

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions package description format

Post by MichaelC » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:51 pm

naderman wrote:I think that "Current" prefixes to a string author type are superfluous. I'm fine with adding previous or former, if you want to indicate they did not actually author anything in the current version, but that just seems odd. It's an author tag, not a maintainer tag. So it doesn't mean that someone is currently maintaining the package, but that they were an author at the time the package was published like that. And even if someone no longer contributes they remain an author unless all their contributions have actually been deleted. So I'd prefer that we do not mandate and prefixing like that for author types.

Also please don't post specifications as PDFs. This is a web project. Post them on the wiki if you like or here in BBCode, but not as PDFs.
I copied it just from how its done in MODX.

And I posted it as PDF because the MODX 1 Spec was done as a PDF. And formatting that was hard enough in MS Word, it would be near on impossible to do and do it neatly in BBcode or wiki.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
igorw
Registered User
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:47 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions package description format

Post by igorw » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:55 am

People still write official RFCs in text format and it works just fine. It doesn't need to be shiny, it needs to be understandable, readable and editable.

User avatar
tumba25
Registered User
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Kokkola, Finland.
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extension Admin

Post by tumba25 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:24 am

brunoais wrote:Don't MOD ppl need to specify the minimum PHP version for their MOD to work? Say... Need php 5.3 caused by a function needed that exists only in php5.3?
"php-version": "5.3.*",
Only if the MOD requires a newer php version than phpBB.
Image

Need a mod created/installed, other custom-coded solution or a server admin? https://tumba25.net

User avatar
tumba25
Registered User
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Kokkola, Finland.
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by tumba25 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:33 am

As I said on IRC please use a free file format, to make sure everybody can read and edit the specs.

I think Author => type should be renamed to position.

Current and previous makes sence if the position is maintainer, translator, tester or something like that, but then the dates also should be there. And if there is a ending date it obviously is previous.
Image

Need a mod created/installed, other custom-coded solution or a server admin? https://tumba25.net

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by MichaelC » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:20 am

tumba25 wrote:As I said on IRC please use a free file format, to make sure everybody can read and edit the specs.

I think Author => type should be renamed to position.

Current and previous makes sence if the position is maintainer, translator, tester or something like that, but then the dates also should be there. And if there is a ending date it obviously is previous.
Format: Yep.

Rename: Nils mentioned that briefly on IRC but didn't have any strong preferences.

Current & Prevous: Its since been changed (I forgot to edit the spec attachment in the first post) and now its free-form as per a request from Nils. So they can put the position but the prefix current/previous is not required but previous may be added.

Dates: As for dates, personally I think thats kind of overkill but if you really think its needed I'll add it.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
tumba25
Registered User
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Kokkola, Finland.
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by tumba25 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:27 am

Unknown Bliss wrote:Rename: Nils mentioned that briefly on IRC but didn't have any strong preferences.
I preffer position. Type feels definetly wrong, IMO.
Unknown Bliss wrote:Dates: As for dates, personally I think thats kind of overkill but if you really think its needed I'll add it.
No, date needed. If prevous and current where used, then I think we also need dates, but not without them.
Image

Need a mod created/installed, other custom-coded solution or a server admin? https://tumba25.net

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by MichaelC » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:35 am

Ok, I'll be changing that then.

I've updated the spec in the first post, added a schema, updated the example and added 2 more examples.

Feel free to criticise and point out and differences between the schema and the spec (or even where the examples do something wrong).

I've created a repo with it all in to make updating it all easier instead of using lots of gists but the repo isn't a proper one, just a way of keeping track of changes and letting me update stuff easily.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by imkingdavid » Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:43 pm

Actually, I think "Role" would be better than permission(edit: position). Or "Status". But whatever you guys decide I guess is fine.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.

Post Reply