Search found 132 matches

by Phil
Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:42 am
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Some style modifications
Replies: 2
Views: 3246

Re: Some style modifications

First of all i don't see the point of having "subject" at replays. The users must post on topic otherwise -> warn for spam. So "subject" in replay is unnecessary. I assume you mean "reply" here as opposed to "replay". If that's the case, I agree; I'm relatively sure they are around only because the...
by Phil
Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:58 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Beware the 4.0
Replies: 25
Views: 27131

Re: Beware the 4.0

Really? You think? And here I was just working my self up to be superstitious about it. You’ve dashed all my... fears. :( I’m sure glad you pointed that all out, what would we have done! Your sarcasm is not appreciated, David. Though the original post was tongue-in-cheek, further posts in this topi...
by Phil
Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:20 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Beware the 4.0
Replies: 25
Views: 27131

Re: Beware the 4.0

I think that any amount of superstition regarding numbers is a bit insane and really has no place in software versioning ;) 4 is the next logical progression from the current version (3), and I see no reason at all why it won't work.
by Phil
Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:40 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC & Patch][Implemented] Coding Guidelines
Replies: 55
Views: 51932

Re: [RFC & Patch] Coding Guidelines

Looks good to me as well aside from one minor thing (which Dog Cow already mentioned) -- the use of spaces instead of tabs. To be honest I don't understand the rationale here -- correct me if I'm wrong the purpose is so the code looks visually identical (or close) regardless of one's text editor set...
by Phil
Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:59 am
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: [Usability] Reducement of confirmation pages / Allow undo
Replies: 37
Views: 32966

Re: [Usability] Reducement of confirmation pages / Allow undo

IMHO anything taking place in the *CPs would qualify, as well as things like post deletion (though if a soft-delete type feature were implemented that may reduce the need, though adding an undo there may add ease of use)... editing perhaps?
by Phil
Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:47 am
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Search Architecture
Replies: 28
Views: 25816

Re: Search Architecture

"Tagging" doesn't have to be free tagging, where users come up with the tags. You could also given them the option of picking from a certain set of tags. What I have often thought about is the ability to put a single topic in different forums. That's really the same thing, in a way. This is not rea...
by Phil
Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:50 am
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Attachment Management
Replies: 14
Views: 13951

Re: Attachment Management

The objective of Area51 is to provide a test-bed for bleeding edge code that actually has some traffic. Moving everything over to the main site eliminates that.
by Phil
Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:34 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Phpbb4 Extensions Repo organization
Replies: 12
Views: 19185

Re: [RFC] Phpbb4 Extensions Repo organization

IIRC apt functions much like code reader's RFC described. Out of curiosity code reader, how would you suggest naming be handled? I know there is potential for two different "extensions" to have the same name, which would create a conflict if two repositories were added that contained these separate ...
by Phil
Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:10 am
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Attachment Management
Replies: 14
Views: 13951

Re: Attachment Management

My statement was not at all a personal attack on your ideas or philosophy or anything else, nor, I should point out, is it at all an enforcement of policy here or representative of the ideas or goals of the development team. It is an opinion just like yours or anyone elses. Architecture consists of ...
by Phil
Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:28 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Phpbb4 Extensions Repo organization
Replies: 12
Views: 19185

Re: [RFC] Phpbb4 Extensions Repo organization

I don't see anything wrong after a quick glance but TBH I think it is far too early to start commenting/debating RFCs with regard to features that will not be relevant for at least a year or more. Perhaps we should defer this until an "extension" architecture is written/Titania is finished? Things l...