[RFC] Board offline

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
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by Pony99CA »

I'm still not sure that I see the value in this. I think that there are more valuable things to add first (like new Custom Profile Field types).

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by EXreaction »

DavidIQ wrote:
Kamahl19 wrote:I thought alpha stage means there are not all features implemented yet. So I dont see a problem in adding this to 3.1, if it is well written (I dont know I did not check). Or is it against some phpbb release policy? :)
If the development team wants to go against their own policies or mandates then that's fine too I guess. ;) Adding new features to any release, be it alpha or beta, adds instability to an already presumed unstable product.
We've actually merged quite a few new features since then (soft delete for example).

At this time, merging a "feature" will depend on how large of a feature it is and how well it is covered by tests (this is still mostly the case even in 3.0). Larger features are almost certainly going to go into 3.2.
Pony99CA wrote:I'm still not sure that I see the value in this. I think that there are more valuable things to add first (like new Custom Profile Field types).

Steve
How valuable something may seem is irrelevant if there is nobody willing to write a PR for it.
User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by Pony99CA »

EXreaction wrote:How valuable something may seem is irrelevant if there is nobody willing to write a PR for it.
True, but I presume that just because soembody writes a Pull Request for a feature doesn't guarantee inclusion, either. It will still need some judgment on value (plus the probability of introducing instability that you mentioned before).

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
User avatar
wintstar
Registered User
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:38 pm
Location: Gießen /Hessen Germany
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by wintstar »

Pony99CA wrote:
EXreaction wrote:How valuable something may seem is irrelevant if there is nobody willing to write a PR for it.
True, but I presume that just because soembody writes a Pull Request for a feature doesn't guarantee inclusion, either. It will still need some judgment on value (plus the probability of introducing instability that you mentioned before).

Steve
Pony99CA I'm sorry, but this is about the topic of [RFC] Board offline you could not open an extra topic?
Greeting Stephan :-)
User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1864
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by DavidIQ »

wintstar wrote:
Pony99CA wrote:
EXreaction wrote:How valuable something may seem is irrelevant if there is nobody willing to write a PR for it.
True, but I presume that just because soembody writes a Pull Request for a feature doesn't guarantee inclusion, either. It will still need some judgment on value (plus the probability of introducing instability that you mentioned before).

Steve
Pony99CA I'm sorry, but this is about the topic of [RFC] Board offline you could not open an extra topic?
His comments have to do with your topic/feature so I see no reason to attempt to kick him out of your RFC topic. You have introduced a "feature" for a product that has been demed feature frozen. The fact that you've created a PR for it now opens you up to scrutiny as to if this was a really desired feature and as to if it will bring further instability to the product.
Image
User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by EXreaction »

This forum is for RFCs for 3.x, so it can be discussed even if it will just go into 3.2.

Since I'm replying anyways, Pony99CA, yes, just because someone writes a PR doesn't mean it would be included, but rarely is that due to us not liking the feature, but rather it would be due to the code that is written (though we would review and make suggestions to improve the code so it is up to our standards).
User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by Pony99CA »

EXreaction wrote: Since I'm replying anyways, Pony99CA, yes, just because someone writes a PR doesn't mean it would be included, but rarely is that due to us not liking the feature, but rather it would be due to the code that is written (though we would review and make suggestions to improve the code so it is up to our standards).
I'm not saying that the feature is bad or good. It seems relatively interesting if not really necessary. I'm just curious how a PR like this would get evaluated for inclusion into the code base, not from a technical point of view, but from a user's point of view.

For example, calling this "Board Offline" is misleading -- the board is still online (even a disabled board is online). It's more like a read-only board setting. It could also confuse the user who would wonder what the difference between a "disabled" and "off-line" board was. (Granted those could probably be fixed by renaming the feature, but there may be other considerations, like does it make the ACP more cumbersome in general?)

Or suppose that it was a feature that had little or no user support (or, worse, people actively did not want it). Would it still get added? I presume that if I created a PR that allowed displaying Pokemon card images in posts, that would get rejected even if the coding was perfect because the feature was too much of a niche thing. :D (I'm not saying that this is a niche feature, of course.)

As for the feature, maybe it needs a better description of what it does. I made some comments in the Ideas area (some of which are listed here, too) but the author didn't answer those. I'm worried about adding a PR to phpBB when the function and support isn't clear, hence my questions.

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
User avatar
wintstar
Registered User
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:38 pm
Location: Gießen /Hessen Germany
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Board offline

Post by wintstar »

Board Offline is selected as perhaps unfortunate name. Board Archive maybe it would make more.

What is the function?
There are many ways to use this function
It is with longer maintenance is for guests and bots give you the opportunity to read the posts
You can use it as an archive
There are seasonal topics
and much more...

What action is function?
It hides all topics and reply buttons from and all login forms. The users want this function if the board is disabled and you can read the posts. I am not php professional and her determined, you can insert this function easier and I did.

Was about 60 times so far this mod downloaded. I know that this has nothing to say. However, there is an interest.
This also I described in this topic https://www.phpbb.com/ideas/idea.php?id=127. And on Pony99CA last post I've also answered. Please Excuse my bad english.
Greeting Stephan :-)
Post Reply