Requirements page

[code reader]

...
Then I can only assume you do not have the underlying skill set and background in software development process that would allow it to *make sense* to you. Regardless of it's making sense to you, it is in fact an industry standard and I explained exactly why along with the two-fold value it adds by being defined as such. What part of my previous explanation are you having difficultly with? Or did you not even read it?

wrt to your assumptions:
i read your credentials you published here, and based on them i can assure you that i have more experience in software development than you do, inside and outside of fortune 500.

now that we are done (i hope) with the "mine is bigger than yours" part, i believe you are plain wrong with how "requirements" are used *with other software packages*.

i challenge you to show a single mainstream *PHP based* package that lists the servers it "supports".
zilch. php packages will list *the PHP versions* they are compatible with, and may add some stipulations like "available memory", "available "disk space" or "database engine".

i do not appreciate your tone, especially when you talk bull.

"what part of what i said do you not understand" is an arrogant phrase that carries the implied assumption that *what you said* is by definition correct.
this is something Linus may say on lkml, or Larry Wall on some perl mailing list. your credentials do not carry enough weight to use such a phrase.

[bolverk]

i read your credentials you published here, and based on them i can assure you that i have more experience in software development than you do, inside and outside of fortune 500.

Unfortunately the content of your posts does not support that assertion. When your catchphrase is "that doesn't make sense to me" regarding IEEE software development process standards, well I can really only come to one conclusion, that you not have a background in that field.

i believe you are plain wrong with how "requirements" are used *with other software packages*.

Then what you "believe" and what you "know" are two completely different things.

i do not appreciate your tone, especially when you talk bull.

There are a lot of things I don't appreciate about you, the least of which being your propensity to reply in topics that you have not read.

"what part of what i said do you not understand" is an arrogant phrase that carries the implied assumption that *what you said* is by definition correct.

Defensive much? What I said was correct, again industry standard IEEE SRS guidelines (incidentally not defined by me personally) are correct and your response to my reply indicated one of two things,
1. You did not even read the reply
2. You did not understand what I said

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed #2, but upon reviewing several of your other posts it is now clear you are indeed not reading all the posts in a topic before replying.

[naderman]

I would have liked to split this annoying fighting out of the topic but I can't really be bothered to edit the posts to keep only the relevant parts. Both of you, please focus on what this is about and stop thinking so much about the other person. So any more of this and I'll just delete the posts.

[code reader]

you are right and i apologize.
since it may have been masked by the noise, let me iterate the meaningful part of what i said:
agreed that defining the requirements for phpbb4 is useful and needs to be done.
however, it is useless to list the *server software* "supported". it has no bearings on phpBB, as a php app.
no other php-based package does it, and they are right not to.

meaningful things to list as "requirement" would be:
-- minimum php version
-- minimum available memory, disk and DB space (where known)
-- list DB back-end engines supported, with minimum version per each
-- list of required php libraries where a required library *might* not be installed in some php installations (eg: requiring mbstring could allow us to get rid of the "utf" tools).


i would not bother to comment about the uselessness of listing the web-servers, except that currently it's the *only* thing listed on the wiki.

peace.

[bolverk]

So any more of this and I'll just delete the posts.

Feel free to do so with all of mine.

[ToonArmy]

While a simple requirement of "a HTTP/1.1 compatible web server capable of running PHP >= 5.3" a list of recommended platforms is more beneficial to the user and to ourselves.