Updating vendors

General discussion of development ideas and the approaches taken in the 3.x branch of phpBB. The current feature release of phpBB 3 is 3.3/Proteus.
Forum rules
Please do not post support questions regarding installing, updating, or upgrading phpBB 3.3.x. If you need support for phpBB 3.3.x please visit the 3.3.x Support Forum on phpbb.com.

If you have questions regarding writing extensions please post in Extension Writers Discussion to receive proper guidance from our staff and community.
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Updating vendors

Post by MichaelC »

With 3.1 alpha nearing I think this is something we really do need to look at.

Symfony
Currently, we are using symfony 2.1, of which support will end in just a few months (likley next month, that page isn't very clear as the diagram shows before May but it says 8 month support windows after release and it was released in September. Even so, this is May at the latest).
The latest symfony version is 2.2, of which support will end in 8 months, was released a few days ago.
The next release, 2.3, is LTS and will be supported for 3 years (by which time a new LTS, 2.7, will have been released), and will be released in May.

Updating the symfony version in the middle of a branch's maintenance would not be a good idea, but we also don't want to have symfony versions that are no longer supported still being distributed & supported which will happen until we EOL that branch.

So, I suggest that we upgrade to symfony 2.2 now (before alpha), this means that we are using Symfony that will be supported for 8 months (November).

Then, if we have not yet reached RC in May, we'll update symfony to 2.3. If we have reached RC in May then so be it, we'll just have to either use unsupported symfony releases or EOL it relatively quickly.

We will then update the maintenance version of the 2.3.x branch for all releases until the first major release after the 2.7.0 release in 2015 when we can switch to 2.7.

jQuery
I'd suggest that this is simply only changed in major releases and that whilst in alpha of a branch this should be updated to the latest jQ version available.

Any major vendors I missed or thoughts?
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
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Updating vendors

Post by imkingdavid »

I think for jQuery we should update any time we both make an update. In other words, if jQuery releases a new version but we're not going to be releasing for a while, there's no reason to force out an update just for that, but IMO whenever we release a new version, we go ahead and include the latest stable version of jQuery. We just need to be sure to include that in the release notes.

As for Symfony, I'll comment on that later when I have time to read and think about all that. :P
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: Updating vendors

Post by MichaelC »

I'm slightly worried that jQ might break BC though (its been done before) and doing this in the middle of a branch isn't a great idea.
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
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Updating vendors

Post by imkingdavid »

MichaelC wrote:I'm slightly worried that jQ might break BC though (its been done before) and doing this in the middle of a branch isn't a great idea.
In that case it should be conditional. If it doesn't break backwards compatibility, we can include it; otherwise it should wait for the next major version.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
User avatar
RMcGirr83
Registered User
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:51 am
Contact:

Re: Updating vendors

Post by RMcGirr83 »

jQuery 1.9 broke BC and they made another js file to cope with that...sort of.
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: Updating vendors

Post by MichaelC »

RMcGirr83 wrote:jQuery 1.9 broke BC and they made another js file to cope with that...sort of.
A maintenance release in 1.7.x broke some stuff for me too but everyone just had to live with it. We should just update the jQ file normally, but only in new x.y releases, not x.y.z
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
callumacrae
Former Team Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Updating vendors

Post by callumacrae »

RMcGirr83 wrote:jQuery 1.9 broke BC and they made another js file to cope with that...sort of.
They removed support for some deprecated and undocumented functions, and added support for the deprecated functions back in a jQuery plugin.

Funny how you can make something perfectly reasonable sound terrible!
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: Updating vendors

Post by MichaelC »

callumacrae wrote:
RMcGirr83 wrote:jQuery 1.9 broke BC and they made another js file to cope with that...sort of.
They removed support for some deprecated and undocumented functions, and added support for the deprecated functions back in a jQuery plugin.

Funny how you can make something perfectly reasonable sound terrible!
It may be reasonable but the point is it still breaks BC and we shouldn't be breaking extension's BC in maintenance releases.
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
callumacrae
Former Team Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Updating vendors

Post by callumacrae »

MichaelC wrote:
callumacrae wrote:
RMcGirr83 wrote:jQuery 1.9 broke BC and they made another js file to cope with that...sort of.
They removed support for some deprecated and undocumented functions, and added support for the deprecated functions back in a jQuery plugin.

Funny how you can make something perfectly reasonable sound terrible!
It may be reasonable but the point is it still breaks BC and we shouldn't be breaking extension's BC in maintenance releases.
Fair enough.

Why not making updating subjective? If the release doesn't break BC, don't update. If it breaks BC, evaluate it: if it's removing a commonly used function, don't update. If it's removing a function deprecated 20 years ago, update.
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog
User avatar
RMcGirr83
Registered User
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:51 am
Contact:

Re: Updating vendors

Post by RMcGirr83 »

callumacrae wrote:They removed support for some deprecated and undocumented functions, and added support for the deprecated functions back in a jQuery plugin.
Yes they did and on some they removed there was documentation

http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/1.9/#ch ... jquery-1-9
Do not hire Christian Bullock he won't finish the job and will keep your money
Post Reply