[Rejected] Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

These RFCs were either rejected or have been replaced by an alternative proposal. They will not be included in phpBB.
Post Reply

Remove subsilver2?

Yes, remove it completely
49
69%
Just remove it from the package, but provide official download and support for 3.1
17
24%
Other / Undecided
5
7%
 
Total votes: 71

User avatar
Arty
Registered User
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

[Rejected] Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by Arty » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:13 pm

There is 2 years old RFC topic on this subject. It has been rejected 2 years ago, but things have changed since then, I think it would be a good idea to reconsider completely removing subsilver2.

RFC ended up with decision to keep subsilver2 as separate style in 3.1 and completely remove it in 3.2. Major factors in that decision were:
  • Many users like subsilver2 layout.
  • Support for outdated browsers.
Things that have changed since RFC discussion that impact subsilver2:
  • IE6 is irrelevant and IE7 is sort of irrelevant with about 1-2% of visitors using it. By the time 3.1 is released, those browsers will be obsolete.
  • Subsilver3 was created. It looks just like subsilver2, but is based on prosilver.
  • Style system was changed and many templates were changed, making it impossible to upgrade 3.0 style to 3.1
  • Mobile devices are used way more often to access web.
  • Extensions were added. Mod authors already don't support subsilver2 in 3.0, I doubt anyone would bother with supporting subsilver3 in 3.1 extensions. Using subsilver2 will cause only problems.
  • AJAX was added. It was not implemented in subsilver2, removing large portion of 3.1 functionality from subsilver2 users.
That changes things a bit:
  • Those who want to use subsilver2 because they like layout can use subsilver3.
  • Those who want to use subsilver2 because their current style is based on it will not be able to upgrade their style. They'll have to rebuild their style anyway, so why not base it on subsilver3 instead?
  • Outdated browsers that don't support prosilver are thing of past.
  • RFC was rejected in favor of graceful deprecation. Graceful deprecation is already happening without 3.1. Many 3.0 mods already don't support subsilver2, 3.1 extensions won't support it ether. That means anyone using subsilver 2 will not be able to use most extensions. Keeping it will only cause problems. No need to drag it out longer, let style die instead of becoming bane of mod authors.
Advantages of completely removing subsilver2:
  • Less work for developers, extension authors, support and styles teams.
  • Since imagesets were removed, new function to keep fake imagesets was added to 3.1. That function isn't really needed for anything other than subsilver 2. Removing subsilver 2 will make it possible to remove that fake imagesets function, as well as many useless template variables added on many pages, such as {IMG_UNAPPROVED}.
  • Subsilver2 is not fully functional. It is missing AJAX. It will be missing mobile layout if its implemented in prosilver (which is a possibility if mobile style rfc is implemented as responsive layout).
  • Most if not all extensions that use templates will not work with subsilver2.
Formerly known as CyberAlien.

Free phpBB styles | Premium responsive XenForo styles

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

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by MichaelC » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:26 pm

  • IE6 & IE7 - Relevance?
  • Subsilver3 - +1, but someone needs to actively develop it and it should be linked to from the downloads page and/or release announcement?
  • Style System was changed - Still supports subsilver?
  • Mobile Devices - Fair enough point, but this would just serve as a reason for users to switch to prosilver of their own accord in 3.1
  • Extensions - Actually I'd say about 50% of 3.0 MODs do support subsilver, and I don't think you should assume that MOD Authors will stop supporting subsilver in 3.1, there is nothing to back this up and is just a guess/assumption made from someone who is neither a MOD or Extension Author. Please don't use this point.
  • AJAX - As mentioned in the previous topic, this is something that with help make people switch to prosilver of their own accord in 3.1
Please can you separate a list of reasons why it should be removed and not decapreated. All of your points are about why its bad, but not why it means it should be removed now and decapreated and removed in 3.2

With your regards to your outdated browsers comment for original removal, I wouldn't say that is worth using as prosilver up until recently (3.1) worked fine with outdated browsers.

And your poll is incorrect, please add "Current decision as made 2 years ago, decapreate it for 3.1 and remove it for 3.2"
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
Registered User
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by Arty » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Unknown Bliss wrote:IE6 & IE7 - Relevance?
One of reasons subsilver2 was kept was outdated browsers.
Unknown Bliss wrote:Subsilver3 - +1, but someone needs to actively develop it and it should be linked to from the downloads page and/or release announcement?
Its a third party style, not official phpBB style. It could probably be mentioned in announcement. As for development, if author won't update it, there were volunteers in other topic.
Unknown Bliss wrote:Style System was changed - Still supports subsilver?
It makes it impossible to update 3.0 styles to 3.1, which makes argument of keeping subsilver2 because some custom layouts are based on it irrelevant.
Unknown Bliss wrote:Extensions - Actually I'd say about 50% of 3.0 MODs do support subsilver, and I don't think you should assume that MOD Authors will stop supporting subsilver in 3.1, there is nothing to back this up and is just a guess/assumption made from someone who is neither a MOD or Extension Author. Please don't use this point.
Fair enough about 3.0, but not about 3.1. subsilver2 will already not be included in phpBB package because of graceful deprecation, so extension authors must stop supporting it. If they continue supporting it, whole point of graceful deprecation becomes moot because same problem will arise with 3.2. Then you'll have same topic during 3.2 development with same point about graceful deprecation and subsilver2 will never be removed.
Unknown Bliss wrote:Please can you separate a list of reasons why it should be removed and not decapreated. All of your points are about why its bad, but not why it means it should be removed now and decapreated and removed in 3.2
Yep, I've edited post as you were replying.
Unknown Bliss wrote:And your poll is incorrect, please add "Current decision as made 2 years ago, decapreate it for 3.1 and remove it for 3.2"
I've changed it a bit.
Formerly known as CyberAlien.

Free phpBB styles | Premium responsive XenForo styles

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

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by MichaelC » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:13 pm

  • Less work for developers - Not really as barely any work is done on both templates during maintenance which 3.1 is almost in
  • Less work for ext developers - Your the one saying that with the graceful deprecation they won't be adding support for it, meaning this point you've already proven incorrect. If they do decide to add support thats their own choice.
  • Less work for support team - Perhaps a tiny but but not noticeable amounts.
  • Less work for Styles Team - How much extra work is it to diff against subsilver2 instead of prosilver?
  • Imagesets - Well adapt it so it doesn't need a fake imageset then if you really don't want a fake imageset, this really doesn't affect anyone but you?
  • Mobile Style - If a mobile style is added, it won't be part of prosilver, it will be an extra style. This has no baring. Anyway, it most likely won't be ready in time anyway.
  • Extensions - Then they can, if they wish, add support for subsilver2. This is up to them, and if they dont then it means it will assist in getting people to move from subsilver to prosilver.
Arty wrote:
Unknown Bliss wrote:IE6 & IE7 - Relevance?
One of reasons subsilver2 was kept was outdated browsers.
I wouldn't say this is valid as prosilver supported IE6 & IE7.
Arty wrote:
Unknown Bliss wrote:Extensions - Actually I'd say about 50% of 3.0 MODs do support subsilver, and I don't think you should assume that MOD Authors will stop supporting subsilver in 3.1, there is nothing to back this up and is just a guess/assumption made from someone who is neither a MOD or Extension Author. Please don't use this point.
Fair enough about 3.0, but not about 3.1. subsilver2 will already not be included in phpBB package because of graceful deprecation, so extension authors must stop supporting it. If they continue supporting it, whole point of graceful deprecation becomes moot because same problem will arise with 3.2. Then you'll have same topic during 3.2 development with same point about graceful deprecation and subsilver2 will never be removed.
Must stop supporting it? Do you control extension author's personal wishes now? It is up to them and certainly won't be added to the DB Guidelines. Please stop making assumptions about things that you have no knowledge nor experience in and stating them like they're fact, then stating that they must do as you wish? Nobody knows how many extension authors will continue to support subsilver. Some will, some wont.
Arty wrote:
Unknown Bliss wrote:And your poll is incorrect, please add "Current decision as made 2 years ago, decapreate it for 3.1 and remove it for 3.2"
I've changed it a bit.
It's still incorrect as it says keep it in 3.1, we aren't keeping it in 3.1. We are removing if from the default package but still supporting 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
nickvergessen
Former Team Member
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by nickvergessen » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:46 pm

Arty wrote:
Unknown Bliss wrote:IE6 & IE7 - Relevance?
One of reasons subsilver2 was kept was outdated browsers.
Never heard that before...
Current prosilver still supports everything back to IE6 apart from an 1pixel off issue on memberlist and proper bbcodes when using keys to add them.
Arty wrote:It makes it impossible to update 3.0 styles to 3.1, which makes argument of keeping subsilver2 because some custom layouts are based on it irrelevant.
The diff between develop and develop-olympus for subsilver2 is not that bad. Okay, almost every file is touched, but mostly its just one or 2 lines changed (mostly new line at the end of the file) The current diff is 118kb which is not very much, as most of it is from the imageset change which can be done by a script.
Attachments
subsilver2.diff
(117.64 KiB) Downloaded 1196 times
Member of the Development-TeamNo Support via PM

User avatar
Dragosvr92
Registered User
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:08 pm
Location: Romania
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by Dragosvr92 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:52 pm

ImageImageImage
Previous user: TheKiller
Avatar on Memberlist 1.0.3

User avatar
nickvergessen
Former Team Member
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by nickvergessen » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:58 pm

Modified the poll
Member of the Development-TeamNo Support via PM

User avatar
keith10456
Registered User
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by keith10456 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:40 am

I'm for removing it completely for 3.1.

The subsilver 2 design is outdated (especially considering the changes in the core code of phpBB 3.1). The majority of the community already moved on from it (most admins and mod developers). I think 3.1 is a good place to cut the cord.

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

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by EXreaction » Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

This poll seems slightly one sided.

User avatar
rxu
Registered User
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by rxu » Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:56 am

I think such a poll should be going on .com support board barely because of lack of end-users on development board here.
Image

Post Reply