WOW! The developers came alive!

[trenzterra]

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/foru ... um_id=2657" target="_blank

was amazed when i looked at the tracker today!

[ChALkeR]

me too 8O
that's great

[Martin Blank]

Most of the entries from the last couple of weeks have been bugfixes for the 2.0.x codebase. Some of them have been updates to Olympus, and there seems to be some work being done on the groups, which has looked to me for some time like the last major visible section to need major work. (This doesn't count myriad backend sections yet to be finished.)

[alcaeus]

They've been alive. However, as for checkins, it's 29-9 for phpBB2 in the last month
The checkins to the Olympus codebase were only minor bugfixes that Bart checked in
And for phpBB2: there were many bugfixes checked in, and there are many to come, that's why the CVS is very "active" at the moment

Greetz
alcaeus

[trenzterra]

Well all along I only saw either pso's or acyd's name, was surprised to see graham and bartvb commit!

anyway i found something weird today: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/foru ... um_id=2657" target="_blank

[the_dan]

Seems like the code audit / bug tracker has paid off nicely

[code reader]

Seems like the code audit / bug tracker has paid off nicely

i dont believe any change that resulted from the audit had found its way into the cvs repository. just imagine, any twopence hacker can see a security-related commit, deduce the vulnerability, and knit a new exploit... not such a great thing.
afaik, all the commits to the phpBB-2_0_0 branch are fixes which were triggered by user-submitted reports to the bug-tracker. (about half of them by alcaeus )

[APTX]

That woulnd't make sense. phpBB would be becoming closed source if the devs would do such things.

[code reader]

That woulnd't make sense. phpBB would be becoming closed source if the devs would do such things.

beg to differ.
in all the previous releases (well, i dont know about "all". let's say at least since 2.0.13, and probably before that) the cvs repository was only updated when the new release was made public.
this looks like a reasonable approach for security fixes, and i dont think it means that "the project is closed-source".
the recent cvs updates to the 2.0 branch are a break away from this tradition, and my interpretation is that this is because they contain bug fixes not related to security.
in any event, i dont see this as an important enough subject for a war, so, if you are not convinced, i wont argue any further...

[APTX]

But you just said they don't add the fixes... the devs will add them when they see fit.
A fix that doesn't fix the thing it should fix can't really be called a fix, can it?