[RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

These RFCs were either rejected or have been replaced by an alternative proposal. They will not be included in phpBB.
Locked
User avatar
Arty
Former Team Member
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Arty » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:44 am

Deprecation way means style still has to be updated, phpBB still must have obsolete imageset code in it because subsilver is relying on it. It allows users to hold to the past, but what's the point in that? Extensions won't work with it, style will not have same functionality as prosilver. As a result, users who use styles based on subsilver will have nothing but problems with their forums.

I don't see anything good about keeping it, even as separate style.

That post you are linking to was made in 2010, when phpBB 3.1 didn't have so many changes that it has now and when IE6 was still slightly relevant. At that time keeping subsilver2 as separate style did make sense. It doesn't make sense now.

User avatar
Ger
Registered User
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:55 pm
Location: 192.168.1.100
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Ger » Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:09 am

+1 for Arty. Following the deprecation method, all the changes Arty described would have to be implemented in subsilver2 as well, that's a lot of extra work. RXU's method would work back then, but since then subsilver3 came out. That makes a huge difference imho. Most of the arguments for keeping subsilver2 are covered by the existence of subsilver3.
Above message may contain errors in grammar, spelling or wrongly chosen words. This is because I'm not a native speaker. My apologies in advance.

User avatar
DarkBeing
Registered User
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Currently Estonia
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by DarkBeing » Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:15 am

I was and am still for a removal. I always thought that it was a "bad" decision to have two styles shipped with the software but I do not want to bring up old arguments for its removal. I think Arty's points are valid ones. Also I do not think that this "slow fading" will work. If i were good at it I would bet that when the time for 3.2 comes we will face the same discussion again with people arguing that they like it and why it is not possible to support it as a separate style. Personally with all the changes that have and will happen, I think it would be better to reconsider and drop subsilver2 for 3.1.

Senky
Extension Customisations
Extension Customisations
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Senky » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:34 am

+1 for removal
As Ger said, anyone willing to use it can use subsilver3.

User avatar
emosbat
Registered User
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:49 am

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by emosbat » Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:15 pm

+1

User avatar
Meis2M
Registered User
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Meis2M » Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:20 pm

Hi.
i love subsilver2 and use it and there is many many users love and use it.

But

If Ajax will not support on subsilver2 in phpBB 3.1

i agree to do something with sub2




If most extensions will not working on subsilver2

i agree to do something with sub2



And we know the default styles of vbulletin 4 ,mybb ,ipboard is very very like prosilver in phpBB.

and i suggest to phpbb team plz dont remove subsilver2. we must use the Standard subsilver means Using subsilver 3 in phpbb 3.1

so it is better " Reject the Removal of subsilver2 RFC" and create a new RFC as name " Using subsilver 3 ".

Thank U

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

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by MichaelC » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:02 pm

Can I just ask what is the point of doing it now? 3.1 is near completion meaning except for bug fixes subsilver doesn't need to be touched. Seeing as all features for 3.1 (excluding 1 [AJAX]) have been developed for subsilver2, there is no point in throwing it away, as all of the extra development work that would have been saved by removing subsilver2 has been done. Removing it now would waste god knows how many hours of work, and save none (as to be honest I think we all agree we should try finish up existing PRs and blockers before starting on any new features). Although as soon as 3.1 has split off into develop-ascraeus then I completely agree, subsilver should be removed from develop. Saying that I have no problem with "throwing away code" if required, it should be expected; but only if there is a benefit (that it will be re-written better or will save time in future), this has no benefit as no major work is done on subsilver whilst in maintenance (which it will soon go into).

Also after removing it, then adding it back due to massive public complaints, if we remove it again then people will be even more unhappy.

By the way, I'd just like to personally point out that I hate subsilver and was actually the one that made the RFC for removing it in 3.2, I just don't see the point in removing it just before 3.1-alpha is ready.
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.

Senky
Extension Customisations
Extension Customisations
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Senky » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:13 pm

Okay, I understand why it should not be removed from 3.1. We should not do that. But we should prepare to remove it in 3.2. If people protest, they should start using subsilver3. Normal users will see no difference, and others will have their jobs simpler - prosilver and subsilver3 changes will be almost the same, and noone has any harm in moving from subsilver2 to subsilver3. So maybe the only thing we should discuss with people is if we are to include subsilver3 in 3.2, or we will maintain only prosilver style from 3.2.

User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by EXreaction » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:17 pm

Unknown Bliss wrote:Seeing as all features for 3.1 (excluding 1 [AJAX]) have been developed for subsilver2, there is no point in throwing it away, as all of the extra development work that would have been saved by removing subsilver2 has been done. Removing it now would waste god knows how many hours of work
Anything done in the past is a sunk cost. The expenditure of time/money in the past should not affect decisions in the present or future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs ... st_fallacy

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

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by MichaelC » Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:30 pm

EXreaction wrote:
Unknown Bliss wrote:Seeing as all features for 3.1 (excluding 1 [AJAX]) have been developed for subsilver2, there is no point in throwing it away, as all of the extra development work that would have been saved by removing subsilver2 has been done. Removing it now would waste god knows how many hours of work
Anything done in the past is a sunk cost. The expenditure of time/money in the past should not affect decisions in the present or future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs ... st_fallacy
You took that totally out of context? My whole point was we should have done it then, or for 3.2. Not in between. I totally agree with chucking away code, but only if chucking it away has a benefit.
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.

Locked