[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These RFCs were either rejected or have been replaced by an alternative proposal.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
Former Team Member
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by Arty »

rxu wrote:I think such a poll should be going on .com support board barely because of lack of end-users on development board here.
Problem with that is those users don't know anything about 3.1.
EXreaction wrote:This poll seems slightly one sided.
Style is going to be removed, the question is if it should be completely removed or if it should be available as separate package.

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

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by brunoais »

rxu wrote:I think such a poll should be going on .com support board barely because of lack of end-users on development board here.
I agree. We should make this pull in the .com (and also call ppl form here to go there, not to vote, but to read what others say and ignore rants. If they want subsilver2 saved, they must state a properly explained why. If they constantly use a properly explained why to keep subsilver2, then I'll have to agree that they prefer us to slow down and... keep subsilver2 ( :( ) until we completely remove all support from it in 3.2. I also think it would make sense to make an announcement about his particular situation (at least while the poll is active) to call as many phpBB users as we can!
Arty wrote:
rxu wrote:I think such a poll should be going on .com support board barely because of lack of end-users on development board here.
Problem with that is those users don't know anything about 3.1.
Users don't know how to explain what they want, they use wrong terminology, wrong assumptions and, sometimes, cut corners in explanations but they do know if something in front of them is what they want or not. The "Clients do not know what they want" is an exaggeration. What really is is: "Clients do not know how to explain what they want". That's why we need to ask them in a way they can understand. For us, developers/programmers, etc... It gets hard to translate, specially the "outdated" part. "If it works, why not use it?" <- How many times I head this sentence applied to HTML...

User avatar
oddfish
Registered User
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:53 am
Location: on my way home
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by oddfish »

Development needs to continue towards where it needs to go. Slowing that progress has and will continue to do no favors for this numbers game I see emerging here.

https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... &t=2098665 took on a shape not favorable to anyone and certainly has done little to help a debate 2 years on.

viewtopic.php?p=211863#p211863 seemed to be a graceful decision to keep in tune with "where to", but moving on from this, the initial inclusion in 3.1 of subsilver2, has not been kept up with making subsilver2 a dieing optional style already behind in development.

I see no value in subsilver2 in its current form and with a few already raising hands to code another optional style based on it, I'm sure, as upgrading will require editing what style used in 3.0 to accommodate the 3.1 engine, there will be a style suitable for board owners who see subsilver2 (as with subsilver) as iconic, in the future.

The seed was sown 2 years ago, cautiously disturbed 2 years ago and still undergoing a debate that will cut a few deeply regardless, 2 years later. There will be options based on prosilver styles that will take 3.1 into another era.

Use this opportunity.

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

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by DarkBeing »

I am all for removing it because I do not see any point in keeping it. We would be in the same discussion again when 3.2 is in the works.

User avatar
rxu Online
Registered User
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by rxu »

DarkBeing wrote:We would be in the same discussion again when 3.2 is in the works.
We wouldn't, because the plan was to drop subsilver2 from the package already for 3.1 but keep support for it separately (so called deprecation phase) and to drop official support of subsilver2 completely for 3.2+.
Image

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

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by DarkBeing »

Maybe and call me pessimistic on this one, but the die hard fans of subsilver2 would probably argue that since support was provided for 3.1, where is the problem to also provide it for 3.2. I know that my argument is mostly hypothetical, but looking at all the discussion we have had so far, it could be more reasonable. Furthermore if something is officially supported it gives the impression (at least to me it would) that you can still develop mods and/or styles for it. Something which I think should be avoided. Or will there be an announcement saying that it is not in the package anymore? That it will be supported but the users can not/should not create any mods/styles with/for it? It makes more sense to me just to drop it.

User avatar
rxu Online
Registered User
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by rxu »

DarkBeing wrote:Or will there be an announcement saying that it is not in the package anymore? That it will be supported but the users can not/should not create any mods/styles with/for it?
Sure, this was in the plans as well.
Image

User avatar
RMcGirr83
Registered User
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:51 am
Contact:

Re: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by RMcGirr83 »

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
Here allow me

https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... #p12831864
Unknown Bliss wrote:It is an old phpBB 2 style. Shouldn't have been brought this far in my opinion. Not all MOD Authors support it as most find it annoying to have to provide updates for it.
I am failing to see why you have suddenly changed your mind concerning it. Sure work has been done on it, so what? Things that have been worked on get trashed all the time in real life. Further by leaving the style in 3.1 but without the "fluff" of prosilver, I think you guys/gals are opening yourselves up for a lot of "Well that sucks! Who determined that subsilver2 was the poster child of phpBB?" type of comments.

PS it's "deprecated" not "decapreated" ;)
Do not hire Christian Bullock he won't finish the job and will keep your money

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 »

RMcGirr83 wrote:
Unknown Bliss wrote:It is an old phpBB 2 style. Shouldn't have been brought this far in my opinion. Not all MOD Authors support it as most find it annoying to have to provide updates for it.
I am failing to see why you have suddenly changed your mind concerning it. Sure work has been done on it, so what? Things that have been worked on get trashed all the time in real life. Further by leaving the style in 3.1 but without the "fluff" of prosilver, I think you guys/gals are opening yourselves up for a lot of "Well that sucks! Who determined that subsilver2 was the poster child of phpBB?" type of comments.
I still hate subsilver 2, I never said I don't. No developer on this board likes it. But I disagree in changing from the deprecation process.

Developers on this board decide what will be best for the users, not best for us. But personally from what I can see, Arty is basically saying 'Users don't know whats good for them, lets just remove something that they very obviously wanted to keep 2 years ago when it was published on the blog and lets have a new vote on a developer forum where the vote will be as one-sided as possible so they don't have a chance to object this time."

There is nothing wrong with trashing stuff, I do it all the time, but only trash something if there is a benefit, the only benefit of this is a tiny amount and it's not worth it. ;)

Anyway, I'm going to cease input on this discussion and just watch how it plays out. I've made my point and there isn't much point in continually repeating it; whatever happens happens. In fact, if subsilver2 is dropped then the only thing that will impact me personally will be I won't add subsilver2 support to my extensions and it will maybe save me some development time if I fix a bug - all positive. But it's not what happens to me that matters, its what the users want/think that matters for me. We met a compromise in the deprecation process, now Arty is turning his back on this compromise and saying he wants it to weigh more heavily towards us developers.
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: Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

Post by Arty »

Yes, that's correct.

However, you are forgetting one major factor - time. Decision was made several years ago. At that time many people expected that 3.1 would be released by now and it was feature frozen. With features and schedule that was planned back then decision made sense. Now it doesn't.

Post Reply