RC1 is no longer miles away!

[LinkinParkBoy]

lool :\

[rommul]

no miles, just months away

[Aaron]

no miles, just months away

2.0 RC1 was released months ago, actually.

[†MavN†]

How about new version smf 2.0 RC2 ??

[Marcus Forsberg]

RC2 is under development. It is released when it's ready.

[karlbenson]

The latest dev blog item by Sleepy is
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=310301.0

[TheListener]

Why ask about RC2 when RC1 is an absolute mess still.

[karlbenson]

Because RC2 should fix issues in RC1.
Thats how our versioning works. Beta 1 through 4, RC1, RC2, RC3?, RC4? 2.0 Final.

The only reason we had RC1-1 was to patch security issues.  We don't usually do a dashed version.
Eg we do not do RC1-1, RC1-2, RC1-3

[TheListener]

I have about had it with 2.0 been trying to get the upgrade ready for members despite a certain tech help ( nameless due to being smf staff) who is never there.

Thankfully we have a 1.1.9 backup still so once I find a suitable theme (if there is one) then I will be going back to 1.1.9

[Fustrate]

It's well-known that 2.0 isn't ready for the big time yet. If your site is mission-critical, you should still be using 1.1.9

[TheListener]

It's well-known that 2.0 isn't ready for the big time yet. If your site is mission-critical, you should still be using 1.1.9

Funny how many sites are using it now and how long has it been around? Several years I was told.

All 3 of the tech staff recommended an upgrade so...

[Jade Elizabeth]

We don't usually do a dashed version.
Eg we do not do RC1-1, RC1-2, RC1-3

Exactly. We do RC1.1 or RC1.2 or RC1.3

* Jade Elizabeth hates the dash

[Fustrate]

It's well-known that 2.0 isn't ready for the big time yet. If your site is mission-critical, you should still be using 1.1.9

Funny how many sites are using it now and how long has it been around? Several years I was told.

All 3 of the tech staff recommended an upgrade so...

They use it because they accept the risks.

Note: As this is in early beta we do not suggest running SMF 2.0 RC1.1 on a production site.

[Jade Elizabeth]

Hey now, enough.

[metallica48423]

Might I suggest filing Bug Reports on the problems you've experienced.  In that way, we can at least take a look at the problems you're having to see if there's something we don't know about.

It would certainly be much more efficient than posting off-color remarks that are more likely to anger someone than help fix any problems that might be legitimate issues.  Otherwise, all we know is what we find in testing and what's reported to us.  I've personally been using 2.0 since the early alpha stage and have had relatively few problems even from that early stage.

So please, let us know.

[TurtleKicker]

The frustrating thing is, 2.0 betas and RCs have been out for so long now, that a lot of mod developers have abandoned work on their 1.x versions and focus exclusively on the 2.0 versions. Often there are lingering bugs in the 1.x editions that now simply won't get any attention. While it's good that the mod developers are on-top of development for the upcoming version of SMF, the abandoning of support for 1.x by them doesn't march in-step with the official line about the betas and RCs of SMF2 to not be used for production sites, and to only be used for testing. While that's what's said on the surface, there then seems to be an unspoken assumption that everyone just run the latest 2.0 RC/beta anyhow. Given the complaints about bugs though I'm just not comfortable with that, so I'm "stuck" on 1.1.9 and the buggy, unsupported mods.

It's getting to be that the only way you can play by the rules is to not use mods... one of SMF's biggest strengths (and one of the reasons I went with SMF over the other options). It's like, either live with the buggy mods or live with the buggy SMF2.

I don't bring this up to pressure the SMF development team at all... I understand things take time. I've done software development myself. It's just a statement of fact... and more of a frustration with the mod developers than anything. This transitional period is a rough and difficult one to ride through for those of us running sites.

[Jade Elizabeth]

SMF cannot control mod authors, who are free to support or create mods for what ever version they like . Yes, some mods are buggy....but I've never had issues finding mods for a 1.1.9 site. Any mod for 1.1.x is likely to work, sometimes you just have to install it by hand though. I had 180+ mods on my 1.1.5 forum before I upgraded to 2.0 .

[TurtleKicker]

SMF cannot control mod authors, who are free to support or create mods for what ever version they like .

I realize that. I'm just providing the SMF team feedback of the "state of the union", so to speak, from the trenches of a lowly SMF user. While the SMF team can't control mod authors, the culture of SMF being a powerful system because of mods implies the expectation that you're going to use them... so how well that dynamic is working is important information to know, in my opinion.

I'm right now faced with 2 rather important mods (for my forum) that aren't working properly. I'm not naming names in this thread as it isn't the appropriate place... but the feedback from both was basically that they're only working on the 2.0 versions now, no more development is taking place on the 1.x versions, regardless of bugs. It's very frustrating.

[Jade Elizabeth]

Being an SMF user doesnt make you "lowly" or any less than the team. We became team members BECAUSE we use SMF .

Look at my two forums. I customise them to pieces, simply because I can and I like to mess with things. But I USE them, and I'm very active in using them.

Also, I find it frustrating when mod authors WONT upgrade their mod for 2.0, like the drafts mod... I could REALLY use that. It works all ways, and mod authors are getting a lot of pressure over it all .


I've made a few of my own mods, and I support all versions and bug fix when needed . Then again mine change like, 2 lines of code .