[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These RFCs were either rejected or have been replaced by an alternative proposal.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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:24 pm

Log from IRC:
<rxu> speaking about subsilver2, there're 2 general reasons users state it to be keeped. One is the table markup - easy to modify. Another is how it looks.
<rxu> As for the latter, that's easy to fix based off prosilver, but the former reason is the problem we can't solve.
<rxu> unknownbliss : ^
<unknownbliss> generally the people that wanted to keep subsilver2 only cared about the latter?
<rxu> my russian community experience say me it's about 50/50
<rxu> says*
<rxu> unknownbliss : we have a poll even btw http://www.phpbbguru.net/community/topic29233.html
<rxu> no need to translate, just look at the %
<unknownbliss> interesting
<unknownbliss> (chrome translates it automatically)
<rxu> only 29% is for removal
<unknownbliss> yup
<unknownbliss> As I said in the topic, I totally agree that subsilver2 is evil and hate developing core stuff or extensions for it
<unknownbliss> but the fact is you don't just remove something?
<unknownbliss> you decapreate it
<unknownbliss> when we tried removing it, there was load of objection
<unknownbliss> but the objection only happended after it was mentioned on the blog
<unknownbliss> as end users dont go on A51
<rxu> the whole idea was to provide smooth removal to let tons of users a time to move to prosilver
<unknownbliss> yup
<rxu> removing subsilver2 right at the 3.1 would stop a lot of users from migration to 3.1
<unknownbliss> indeed
<unknownbliss> and it would save barely any time/effort
<unknownbliss> as all the major features have already been developed for both styles
<unknownbliss> (except AJAX)
<unknownbliss> barely any large template work is done during maintenance
<rxu> not having ajax for subsilver2 is actually fine from the point of encouraging users to move to prosilver (based) styles
<unknownbliss> yup
<rxu> smooth migration, again.
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
rxu
Registered User
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:28 pm
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by rxu » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:38 pm

Pico88 wrote:Guys, take a men decision :) (I hope there are not any womens in that discussion).
Next time please provide meaningful reasons against or for the subsilver2 removal, in according to the topic discussion. Thanks.
Image

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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:47 pm

Unknown Bliss wrote:Of course they know it won't have all the functionality, they have been living with not being supported by most mods already.
So basically, 3.0 is already graceful degradation stage. Then why keep it in 3.1? Situation in 3.1 will be exactly the same. And if following same logic, it should be kept in 3.2 and 4.0 and so on.

I don't understand why you want to keep it in 3.1 and remove in 3.2. What's stopping from removing it in 3.1? Nothing.
Unknown Bliss wrote:IE6 support was decapreated, not removed. You example proves my point?
All patches are not checked for IE6 compatibility, all third party styles are not checked ether. Legacy code is still there, but its unclear if it works at this point. It is as good as being removed.
Unknown Bliss wrote:Decapreating is a proven technique as a process to remove features. Just removing them straight off never works. ;)
And that's what 3.0 is for. Vast majority of mods don't support subsilver, there are fewer and fewer styles (not counting basic clones that are released for sake of releasing something, I'm talking about styles that don't look like simple modifications of original style) based on subsilver. There is subsilver3, that looks like subsilver2, but is based on prosilver. Deprecation has already started in 3.0
Unknown Bliss wrote:we have a poll even btw http://www.phpbbguru.net/community/topic29233.html
Its from 2 years ago, as well as all other data you are posting here. Point of me bumping this topic is to reconsider this RFC based on changes in last 2 years, not to reevaluate 2 years old data.

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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:02 pm

Go out, make some polls and find out if end-users want to have subsilver2 removed in 3.1 then.

Its up to you to prove that 2 year old data is no longer valid (which is your point), not someone else to prove thast 2 year old data is still valid.
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
RMcGirr83
Registered User
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:51 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by RMcGirr83 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:23 pm

And where do you propose to start said poll. phpBB discussion on .com doesn't allow polls as far as I know. I'll make the thing on .com if permitted.

PS +1 for removing subsilver2 and +1 for adding subsilver3 to core for no other reason than to quell the masses and to give mod authors a break for having to support two styles (heh, I do anyway for now).
Do not hire Christian Bullock he won't finish the job and will keep your money

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

Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

Post by brunoais » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:35 pm

Unknown Bliss wrote:Go out, make some polls and find out if end-users want to have subsilver2 removed in 3.1 then.

Its up to you to prove that 2 year old data is no longer valid (which is your point), not someone else to prove thast 2 year old data is still valid.
Don't forget to make the option allowing the user to use some predefined options.
Give the option for the user to choose that he may like the subsilver3. Many out there may not even know that subsilver3 exists.

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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:00 pm

RMcGirr83 wrote:And where do you propose to start said poll. phpBB discussion on .com doesn't allow polls as far as I know. I'll make the thing on .com if permitted.

PS +1 for removing subsilver2 and +1 for adding subsilver3 to core for no other reason than to quell the masses and to give mod authors a break for having to support two styles (heh, I do anyway for now).
If I'm honest even phpBB.com isn't a great place as its regular members are mod authors, style authors, developers, people providing support etc, but its better than here I suppose. The 'way to get feedback' which resulted in all of the negative feedback on this change was a blog article, the blog and announcements are read by many.
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
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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:11 pm

Unknown Bliss wrote:Go out, make some polls and find out if end-users want to have subsilver2 removed in 3.1 then.

Its up to you to prove that 2 year old data is no longer valid (which is your point), not someone else to prove thast 2 year old data is still valid.
There was no such poll to begin with. That's what this topic is for. RFC = request for comments. People are "voting" by replying to this thread.

The only argument for keeping subsilver2 so far is that decision to keep it was made 2 years ago. Things have changed since then, I'm asking to rethink decision. So please provide any actual argument against removing subsilver2. Repeating again and again that decision was made 2 years ago is not a valid argument.

As for possible polls on phpbb.com or third party websites, they would be pointless. To be able to provide valid opinion, user must be familiar with phpBB 3.1. I think area51 is the only forum where users are qualified to vote.
RMcGirr83 wrote:PS +1 for removing subsilver2 and +1 for adding subsilver3 to core
I'm against adding subsilver3 to core. It would be just a replacement for subsilver2 and another style to maintain. I'm sure author would upgrade it to 3.1, so it will be available in styles database for users to install. If not, that style is GPL, so anyone else can upgrade it.

subsilver2 was meant to be removed from core ether, so there is no reason to include subsilver3 instead.

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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:19 pm

On a second thought, I think it would be better to make a poll. This topic is old, long, when replying to posts many people might not know what is being proposed and arguments for/against it.

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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:25 pm

Come up with a valid argument why what happened 2 years ago is not valid please.

There was never a poll last time correct, it was mentioned in a blog post and then users started filling up this topic and blog discussion topic with complaints until eventually the decision was reversed and we said it would just be available separately. Before that blog post everyone agreed with this topic on Area51 which proves that all of the +1's you get in this topic now, essentially mean nothing as the same thing happened last time. Mainly because this changes is great for us developers, but has no benefits for the end-user.

You say the reasons from 2 years ago are no longer valid, but they are and you've shown nothing to show that end-users would be happy with this change. phpBB is not for us developers, its for them.
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