[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These RFCs were either rejected or have been replaced by an alternative proposal.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
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by MichaelC »

Senky wrote:Bliss, just realise the difference: you say to endusers that they can use subsilver3. They have to be happy, because it looks identically to subsilver2. So problem with end users is solved. And now we, developers, are happy, too. I swear I will include style changes to subsilver3 in any of my MODs (extensions eventually) if subsilver2 will be removed :D .

Well, I just wonder why end users disagree with switching from subsilver2 to subsilver3...
That I'd say is fair enough (in my view), but someone needs to ensure subsilver3 is actively updated from release to release.
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 »

So would not it be enough to include subsilver3 into core package and maintain it just like prosilver?

Or team wants only 1 style in the core?

User avatar
rxu
Registered User
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:28 pm
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by rxu »

Please don't mix several things into one.
From my point of view, removal of subsilver2 is an absolutely separate issue, inclusion of any other (subsilver/non-subsilver 3/4/etc) style into the package should be discussed as a different RFC (if needed).

Thus, I'd ask to keep discussion within the current RFC title, thanks.
Image

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

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Senky »

Well, it is not as off-topic as it may look like. Main point why subsilver2 was not removet until today is, that end-users didnot like it. If you want to convince them why to remove subsilver2, you need to give them replacement option. That would be in form of subsilver3. So removal of subsilver2 and adding of subsilver3 as core style should be discussed together.

But ok, let's discuss removal itself.

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 »

Unknown Bliss wrote:Arty, I simply think that if we remove subsilver2; after publicly saying that we would still release subsilver2 with 3.1 after the general users asking to keep it; that it would upset a lot of people.
It wasn't announced anywhere. Where are those users asking to keep it?

Some do want to keep it because they are using it on their 3.0 forums. But I'm sure they are not aware that subsilver in 3.1 does not have same functionality as prosilver, that extensions will not support it.

Eventually it will have to go anyway and there will always be users who'd want to keep it because their forums still use old layout with tables. It will happen sooner or later, the question is, why later instead of sooner?
Unknown Bliss wrote:The whole point of discussion on this board is to decide if a change is useful to the majority of users. The majority of users have said they want to keep it supported for one more release.
What majority are you talking about? Those who did say that they want to keep it, said it 2 years ago. Things have changed since then.

2 years ago style authors had to support IE6 because it was still used by large enough amount of people (probably more than there are IE7 users today), so does it mean we still have to support IE6?
Unknown Bliss wrote:I know we don't like it but a lot of people still use subsilver2, and you can't just remove it straight away, it should be phased out.
And they will keep using it as long as its available. Following your logic, it will never be removed because there will always be users relying on it.

User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by brunoais »

If subsilver3 didn't exist, then I wouldn't quite mind having subsilver2 around. With subsilver3 whose aspect is exactly the same as subsilver2 except the code is much cleaner and HTML5 standards compliant (I don't remember if it has the HTML5 doctype or not), I vote destroy completely subsilver2 from everywhere you can and place subsilver3 in its place.

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by DavidIQ »

brunoais wrote:If subsilver3 didn't exist, then I wouldn't quite mind having subsilver2 around. With subsilver3 whose aspect is exactly the same as subsilver2 except the code is much cleaner and HTML5 standards compliant (I don't remember if it has the HTML5 doctype or not), I vote destroy completely subsilver2 from everywhere you can and place subsilver3 in its place.
That sounds like we'd end up exactly where we started. Besides not supporting an outdated style, we are also wanting to get away from maintaining 2 styles in base.
Image

User avatar
Pico88
Registered User
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Pico88 »

Guys, take a men decision :) (I hope there are not any womens in that discussion).

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

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by EXreaction »

DavidIQ wrote:
brunoais wrote:If subsilver3 didn't exist, then I wouldn't quite mind having subsilver2 around. With subsilver3 whose aspect is exactly the same as subsilver2 except the code is much cleaner and HTML5 standards compliant (I don't remember if it has the HTML5 doctype or not), I vote destroy completely subsilver2 from everywhere you can and place subsilver3 in its place.
That sounds like we'd end up exactly where we started. Besides not supporting an outdated style, we are also wanting to get away from maintaining 2 styles in base.
I'm pretty sure that subsilver3, at least according to the details it lists, only uses a modified theme to create the design and uses all of the templates from prosilver, so that would cut out probably more than 75% of the maintenance requirements.

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 »

Arty wrote:
Unknown Bliss wrote:Arty, I simply think that if we remove subsilver2; after publicly saying that we would still release subsilver2 with 3.1 after the general users asking to keep it; that it would upset a lot of people.
It wasn't announced anywhere. Where are those users asking to keep it?

Some do want to keep it because they are using it on their 3.0 forums. But I'm sure they are not aware that subsilver in 3.1 does not have same functionality as prosilver, that extensions will not support it.

Eventually it will have to go anyway and there will always be users who'd want to keep it because their forums still use old layout with tables. It will happen sooner or later, the question is, why later instead of sooner?
Unknown Bliss wrote:The whole point of discussion on this board is to decide if a change is useful to the majority of users. The majority of users have said they want to keep it supported for one more release.
What majority are you talking about? Those who did say that they want to keep it, said it 2 years ago. Things have changed since then.

2 years ago style authors had to support IE6 because it was still used by large enough amount of people (probably more than there are IE7 users today), so does it mean we still have to support IE6?
Unknown Bliss wrote:I know we don't like it but a lot of people still use subsilver2, and you can't just remove it straight away, it should be phased out.
And they will keep using it as long as its available. Following your logic, it will never be removed because there will always be users relying on it.
Of course they know it won't have all the functionality, they have been living with not being supported by most mods already. And extensions do support subsilver if the author chooses to, it is up to the author (which is how it is in 3.0, nothing has changed?). There is nothing that prevents subsilver2 support in any part of extensions (template events or extensions core) so please do not use this argument as it is simply a guess that mod/ext authors will change from their current way of some supporting subsilver, some not, to no ext/mod authors supporting subsilver2.

Where are they - Have you not read through this topic. Its probably easily the longest RFC on Area51 due to the amount of volume that came here after the blog post.

IE6 support was decapreated, not removed. You example proves my point?

Decapreating is a proven technique as a process to remove features. Just removing them straight off never works. ;)
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