What is the point?

[Dean C]

... Of the 3.6 forums. It's pretty clear that most modifications will still work...

[DrewM]

this was asked yester day and was said by Brad that not all the mods would work so.... I guess that but I mean they could just add 3.6 to the 3.5 drop down menu for verstions beacase it would be like adding a forum for 3.51, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4....

[Tim Skellett]

Since not all modifications will work, and since styles will need updating, I personally like seeing a seperate forum for 3.6; I find it very helpful.

[Hellcat]

The only problem is ppl re-releasing their 3.5 mods, simply becsue they still work in 3.6

That's something that shouldn't be done IMO!

If it needed porting, or is even a new one -> of course.
But posting the re-exported 3.5er simply because it still works in 3.6.... nah.... no good....

[kall]

I totally agree.

A note to say it works in both versions should be sufficient.

[peterska2]

There are a number of template changes between 3.5.x and 3.6.x so anything that requires a template edit may need to be redone. Also, as previously stated, not all 3.5 modifications will work on 3.6 due to some changes in the code and the way things work.

[peterska2]

The only problem is ppl re-releasing their 3.5 mods, simply becsue they still work in 3.6

That's something that shouldn't be done IMO!

If it needed porting, or is even a new one -> of course.
But posting the re-exported 3.5er simply because it still works in 3.6.... nah.... no good....

Some updates/new features/tweaks/etc of a 3.5 mod done with 3.6 mean that it is now a 3.6 release (IMO anyway) but otherwise, it's a 3.5 release and a note should be added to the thread to say that it works in 3.6

[Hellcat]

There are a number of template changes between 3.5.x and 3.6.x so anything that requires a template edit may need to be redone. Also, as previously stated, not all 3.5 modifications will work on 3.6 due to some changes in the code and the way things work.
Those would quallify for me as "not working in 3.6 (without porting)" and hence can be posting in the 3.6 mods section.

But there many mods that just simply work - even my webmailer, pm-auto-reply, /me-hack and whatnotelse.

Import the 3.5 .XML -> boom! done! works!

And those shouldn't be re-released (but they are)

[Ohiosweetheart]

When I upgraded last night, 4 of my hacks/mods didn't work at all, 2 of them stalled the upgrade. I had to disable hooks via a code in the config.php (thanks noppid), then login and disabla all hacks. By turning them on one by one, I found the four that didn't work with 3.6 and had to uninstall them.
PITA

[Roms]

The only problem is ppl re-releasing their 3.5 mods, simply because they still work in 3.6

That's something that shouldn't be done IMO!

If it needed porting, or is even a new one -> of course.
But posting the re-exported 3.5er simply because it still works in 3.6.... nah.... no good....

I agree, I couldn't have said it better myself. Especially simple template edits that could be updated in the 3.5 threads.... :tired:

[Boofo]

When I upgraded last night, 4 of my hacks/mods didn't work at all, 2 of them stalled the upgrade. I had to disable hooks via a code in the config.php (thanks noppid), then login and disabla all hacks. By turning them on one by one, I found the four that didn't work with 3.6 and had to uninstall them.
PITA

It might be nice if we could start a list somewhere of what doesn't work so far so we can see if we can get them upgraded for 3.6.

[Dean C]

3.6 is not a major new version, and in my opinion it doesn't warrant a new section. It just gives people another excuse to dupe their mods for a new version./

[Boofo]

3.6 is not a major new version, and in my opinion it doesn't warrant a new section. It just gives people another excuse to dupe their mods for a new version./

Exactly! They add an unpdate to make it look like it is different, but it really isn't. ;)

[noppid]

I too have to agree. The addition of 3.6 forums seems to be unnecessary and worse, confusing. I expect new members or members that don't frequent the site may search and find a mod they want and see it's for 3.5.x and move on.

[Hornstar]

Well, this would solve it.

Get rid of the 3.6 forums

Rename the 3.5 forums to 3.5/3.6

currently the author has the option to do this [vB 3.5.x] Hack name

Edit the template to give the author the option to choose this

[vB 3.5.x]/[vB 3.6.x] Hack name

Now when we go to that hack/mod

We will know it works for what version, no more confusion

If this does not get done, I will be surprised.

[Dean C]

Well, this would solve it.

Get rid of the 3.6 forums

Rename the 3.5 forums to 3.5/3.6

currently the author has the option to do this [vB 3.5.x] Hack name

Edit the template to give the author the option to choose this

[vB 3.5.x]/[vB 3.6.x] Hack name

Now when we go to that hack/mod

We will know it works for what version, no more confusion


If this does not get done, I will be surprised.
I agree with everything hornstar1337 said apart from the title of the threads ;) Should be: [vB 3.5.x/3.6.x] Hack name

Shorter ;)

[TruthElixirX]

Would it not be possible to do it this way:

Code a system so that if ANY 3 people "tag" it as 3.6 compatible, it gets auto moved to 3.6?

[Hornstar]

Would it not be possible to do it this way:

Code a system so that if ANY 3 people "tag" it as 3.6 compatible, it gets auto moved to 3.6?


No point really, as what I have said above is the method that should be done with one exception [vB 3.5.x/3.6.x] ;) Thanks Dean lol

[Ohiosweetheart]

As if there's not enough griping threads on this site.... for DAYS people have been bellyaching about how the site restructure has made it harder to find things. Staff creates a 3.6 section to make it EASIER for people who d/l 3.6 to find 3.6 mods... lo and behold someone has to find a reason to gripe about that too???

I can see it now.........................
After 3.6 stable version comes out, new members d/l 3.6, come looking for the 3.6 section to d/l 3.6 modifications, don't find said section... and here comes the onslaught of threads in site feedback asking where to find the hacks for 3.6.
Do you REALLY think they are going to look in 3.5.x for a 3.6 mod?? All of you who are griping about every stupid little thing you can find to gripe about... be ready to stand guard at site feedback and answer thread after thread of where to find the 3.6 hacks.

This place is becoming childish and ridiculous

[Boofo]

This place is becoming childish and ridiculous

It is not, and I'm telling! :p

[Gio~Logist]

As if there's not enough griping threads on this site.... for DAYS people have been bellyaching about how the site restructure has made it harder to find things. Staff creates a 3.6 section to make it EASIER for people who d/l 3.6 to find 3.6 mods... lo and behold someone has to find a reason to gripe about that too???

I can see it now.........................
After 3.6 stable version comes out, new members d/l 3.6, come looking for the 3.6 section to d/l 3.6 modifications, don't find said section... and here comes the onslaught of threads in site feedback asking where to find the hacks for 3.6.
Do you REALLY think they are going to look in 3.5.x for a 3.6 mod?? All of you who are griping about every stupid little thing you can find to gripe about... be ready to stand guard at site feedback and answer thread after thread of where to find the 3.6 hacks.

This place is becoming childish and ridiculous

I can see where you're coming from and agree with a couple of the things that you said. However, as others mentioned, making the forum "3.5.x/3.6.x" make it so that no confusion is caused. Also, saying that this is childish and ridiculous in my opinion is a ridiculous statement considering that this is just users looking for the best of vb.org

[Ohiosweetheart]

Also, saying that this is childish and ridiculous in my opinion is a ridiculous statement considering that this is just users looking for the best of vb.org
by finding fault with everything that the staff tries to do? right... I can just about guarantee they'll never find it.
.org has ceased to be a place to learn about and enhance your vBulleting board. It has become a fault-finding, nit-picking, playground. And that is not only my opinion.



It is not, and I'm telling! :p
LOL...

[Gio~Logist]

by finding fault with everything that the staff tries to do? right... I can just about guarantee they'll never find it.
.org has ceased to be a place to learn about and enhance your vBulleting board. It has become a fault-finding, nit-picking, playground. And that is not only my opinion.




LOL...

I can once again see where you're coming from. However, aren't you "fault-finding and nit-picking" right now? ;)

[Ohiosweetheart]

I can once again see where you're coming from. However, aren't you "fault-finding and nit-picking" right now? ;)

LOL... I guess you could say that. Because I'm tired of seeing the multitude of griping, complaining, fault-finding threads... and there are a multitude of them... and decided to say something... how many times? compared to the rest of you?

Hardly a comparison. Actually what I call me doing is defending the staff and leaders of this site. I wouldn't blame them if they got fed up and closed it down. Then where would y'all be.

[Hornstar]

It is not, and I'm telling! :p


ROFL the memories of school :D


Like I said earlier, instead of making a new section, they had to simply rename the old section to include 3.6

and then add the option for the author to be able to select what versions it works for.

Quite simple, and I'm sure it will get changed to this, as it will solve ALL problems.

[Gio~Logist]

LOL... I guess you could say that. Because I'm tired of seeing the multitude of griping, complaining, fault-finding threads... and there are a multitude of them... and decided to say something... how many times? compared to the rest of you?

Hardly a comparison. Actually what I call me doing is defending the staff and leaders of this site. I wouldn't blame them if they got fed up and closed it down. Then where would y'all be.

Personally, vbhackers as well as my own sites :p. And i'll force you to come with me and then when you come i'll add some "fault-finding and nit-picking" threads just to bug you hehe :P

[Ohiosweetheart]

No thanks... I'll spend my time at vB-FAQ just as I do now, lol ;)

[Boofo]

And don't forget swooning the Boof!

[Ohiosweetheart]

And don't forget swooning the Boof!
always baby.... always https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/

[Boofo]

Oooohhh, I just felt a shiver, but a good one. :)

[Gio~Logist]

always baby.... always http://www.exquisitelyerotic.net/forums/images/smilies/lips.gif

Are you flirting with boofo? Cheater!

[Boofo]

Yeah, like you could handle her. :confused:

[Gio~Logist]

Yeah, like you could handle her. :confused:
Younger and more energetic = i think i can :p Then again, her website does kind of make her a bit harder to handle perhaps.

[Roms]

by finding fault with everything that the staff tries to do? right... I can just about guarantee they'll never find it.
.org has ceased to be a place to learn about and enhance your vBulleting board. It has become a fault-finding, nit-picking, playground. And that is not only my opinion. LOL...

If members have concerns it is OKAY to discuss them, we have time vested in our modifications and want to see that things are handled in a way that benefits everyone. I'll tell you what I find "fault-finding, nit-picking, playground" is when members try to discuss something and then someone turns it into another us against them discussion.

Lets keep on topic: Is there a valid reason to keep the 3.6 mod forums seperate from 3.5

[noppid]

I'll post again when I decide which side of this arguement will be more annonying to support.

For now, I'm having a white russian and LOL.

[Boofo]

I'm glad to see that we can always count on you to make things right again. :cross-eyed:

[vBintense]

I like the idea it has its own section due to not every thing will work with it, template changes as well as the small code changes do impact the add ons.

And with the new lay out of the modifications I do not see how it hurts anyone.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Younger and more energetic = i think i can :p Then again, her website does kind of make her a bit harder to handle perhaps.

ohhh judging me by my website? tsk tsk

If members have concerns it is OKAY to discuss them, we have time vested in our modifications and want to see that things are handled in a way that benefits everyone. I'll tell you what I find "fault-finding, nit-picking, playground" is when members try to discuss something and then someone turns it into another us against them discussion.

Lets keep on topic: Is there a valid reason to keep the 3.6 mod forums seperate from 3.5

Just as you have your opinion, I have mine. I'm not the one who turned this into another "us against them" discussion... that was done before I posted here.

To answer your question, I'm sure the staff felt there was a valid reason. And it's done. Enjoy it

I'll post again when I decide which side of this arguement will be more annonying to support.

For now, I'm having a white russian and LOL.
annonying? how many of those have you had darlin'? lol

[smacklan]

Oooohhh, I just felt a shiver, but a good one. :)
all I can say is this conversation makes me want to...

[noppid]

Don't make me pull this car over!

[Ohiosweetheart]

Don't make me pull this car over!you want to, you know you do

[Boofo]

Cheater!

[Ohiosweetheart]

now now... I haven't given up on you yet...

[Boofo]

now now... I haven't given up on you yet...

I hope not, because I am soooooo lonely now. :(

[Lottis]

Not all hacks works with 3.6.0
Not-vbadvance
Not- Plaza
And one more, but i havent figure out witch one makes a conflict.

[Boofo]

Not all hacks works with 3.6.0
Not-vbadvance
Not- Plaza
And one more, but i havent figure out witch one makes a conflict.

I don't use either one of those so I am 2 for 0 so far. Let's hope the one other you have it another one I don't use. ;)

[kira]

ohhh judging me by my website? tsk tsk
Just as you have your opinion, I have mine. I'm not the one who turned this into another "us against them" discussion... that was done before I posted here.


Actually, no. You're the one who turned the thread into an us v. them discussion by having your hissy fit about people "complaining about every little thing."

I notice that you are allowed to complain about the graphics & styles area a few threads below, because after all, it's important to you and thus fair game. But others' complaints? Nope, not allowed, they're just +++++ing and moaning about "every little thing."

FWIW, I don't have a problem with the new 3.6 boards, since I think it's possible that new hacks may work with 3.6 but not 3.5. But for those who do have issues, I think it's valuable to hear their opinions, especially since no one here was doing so in an unhelpful or insulting manner.

We're all admins here, most of us anyway. Site Feedback is for the positives and negatives. If the negatives are currently outweighing the positives, well, that's just part of the usual cycle. Any smart admin worth the title will listen to ALL complaints, not just those from an annointed few. Some may be baseless, sure. That's not for us to decide. It's all part of the gig.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Actually, no. You're the one who turned the thread into an us v. them discussion by having your hissy fit about people "complaining about every little thing."

I notice that you are allowed to complain about the graphics & styles area a few threads below, because after all, it's important to you and thus fair game. But others' complaints? Nope, not allowed, they're just +++++ing and moaning about "every little thing."

FWIW, I don't have a problem with the new 3.6 boards, since I think it's possible that new hacks may work with 3.6 but not 3.5. But for those who do have issues, I think it's valuable to hear their opinions, especially since no one here was doing so in an unhelpful or insulting manner.

We're all admins here, most of us anyway. Site Feedback is for the positives and negatives. If the negatives are currently outweighing the positives, well, that's just part of the usual cycle. Any smart admin worth the title will listen to ALL complaints, not just those from an annointed few. Some may be baseless, sure. That's not for us to decide. It's all part of the gig.
I happen to agree with you on most points.

As for the graphics section, I have backed up one lady about the graphics section in all of what... maybe 4 posts? 5 at the most. That's hardly the same thing. And FYI... all of this site is important to me, not just the graphics section. I'm an admin like most here are, so ONE section wouldn't be more important to me than another.
It just seems like every single thing that the staff does here is in the line of fire lately. New members are coming in, reading these threads and saying WTH is going on here? Some have even posted their views on what they see. Have you read them?
My post was hardly a "hissy fit"... it was my opinion.. posted and over with. Just as your post is your opinion. Have a nice day

[Mosh]

I agree with the party saying that modifications that have been release for 3.5.x and work with 3.6 (without modification) should NOT be posted in the 3.6 forums.

It is just duplicating the same work to get extra Installs, which in my opinion is low and make a mockery of the Coders/Designers promotion system, as I assume it is an automated system and probably can not tell that the same code has been posted twice in two different places.

Coders/Designers should just put a notice in their 3.5.x modifications to say that it works with 3.6 or like hornstar1337 and Dean C said we could have a [v3.5.x/3.6] version selection in vB version when editing a modification.

I think only modifications that have had to be altered for 3.6 should be allowed in the 3.6 forums, and the rest should be removed for fairness to the other coders/designers who have not gone down that route that certain coders/designers have.

I will be doing the same once I have tested my modifications with v3.6, if they work without alteration then I will either state that is the case or use the appropriate vB version selection if it available.

Just my 2c worth to this discussion.

[davidw]

Please, people, lets try to keep this on subject and civil.

[Alan @ CIT]

If your modification works in 3.6 without changes, just ask a mod to move your 3.5 thread to the 3.6 forums. If it needs fixing to work with 3.6, then fix it and request the thread be moved to the 3.6 forums.

There really is no need to make a new thread in the 3.6 forums, it hasn't changed THAT much that a second copy of the hack needs to exist. Just fix your current hacks to work with both 3.5.4 and 3.6.

Thanks,
Alan.

[Mephisteus]

Personally I think the entire mod system will be filled with 'dupe' hacks because of this, hacks with only ever slightly modifications (or no modifications at all) would be counted as new hacks. If this thing goes on, the whole 'coder/designer' title system should be ditched beyond the regular titles (eg. no master/advanced) to keep that fair (thats my major gripe with this, it causes 'fake' stats which makes them misleading).

I'd rather see a mod database in which you can download different versions of the same mod for different versions of vBulletin, so instead of going to vBulletin Version -> Type -> Hack you would go to Type -> Hack -> vBulletin Version.

If your modification works in 3.6 without changes, just ask a mod to move your 3.5 thread to the 3.6 forums. If it needs fixing to work with 3.6, then fix it and request the thread be moved to the 3.6 forums.
But then people running 3.5 will see a mod and think its 3.6 only ;).

[noppid]

Change is never easy. I'm sure our needs will enable us to rise to what ever ocasion we need to to do our research.

There are more important things to worry about then a duplicate post of a hack. IMO it's a nice way to archive old code for reference when postigng new code. The new code usually causes the old code zip to be removed and the reference gone which can come in handy later in some cases.

So it's all good unless the hard dirve is full?

[COBRAws]

I dont like seeing 300 new releases for a BETA, i dont know. But its a beta, I run a test board with 3.6 with a duplicate of my live 3.5 and its full of errors, so I cant upgrade my live board.

I dont see why the 3.6 mod cat was created if its just a Beta, not a final release. Its a waste of time and coding IMHO. besides, 90% of those hacks are the same as for the 3.5mod category, they only changed the "HACK NAME for vb3.6"

[Wired1]

I agree with the party saying that modifications that have been release for 3.5.x and work with 3.6 (without modification) should NOT be posted in the 3.6 forums.

It is just duplicating the same work to get extra Installs, which in my opinion is low and make a mockery of the Coders/Designers promotion system, as I assume it is an automated system and probably can not tell that the same code has been posted twice in two different places.

Coders/Designers should just put a notice in their 3.5.x modifications to say that it works with 3.6 or like hornstar1337 and Dean C said we could have a [v3.5.x/3.6] version selection in vB version when editing a modification.

I think only modifications that have had to be altered for 3.6 should be allowed in the 3.6 forums, and the rest should be removed for fairness to the other coders/designers who have not gone down that route that certain coders/designers have.

sounds good to me.

If a hack works for both 3.5 and 3.6 with no alterations, it somehow needs to be marked as such, perhaps "BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE"? Having a thread in multiple forums would solve this, but of course that's not as easily to accomplish. However, if there was some type of "compatiblity" marker in the version #, AND there was a full search engine for listings, this would be a good solution. Lots of coding to do though.


If a hack needs significant code changes to work w/ 3.6, then yes, it deserves to be in the 3.6 area, however it shouldn't warrant another +1 to the hack count, as it's just an upgrade. Perhaps some way to combine the install count between the hacks? Or perhaps ask people that have upgraded and are now using the 3.6 version of the hack to uninstall the old version?

Not sure how the back end works, but something that could keep track on the back end of who has installed what hack (probably just an easy SQL query on top of the current tables) and to change the install #s accordingly would be nice. An addendum for both hacks that could say something like "x # of people have upgraded this hack" would be awesome.

[majorxp]

Quickly scanning the vbulletin.com forums I see one for 3.0, 3.5 and 3.6. Obviously the mothership views the 3.5 to 3.6 as a significant version jump as 3.0 to 3.5. ORG should too. If and when they get merged, ORG can too...

This site should follow the vbulletin.com site.

[Dean C]

Well is anything going to be done about this?

[Brad]

There will be an announcement concerning this soon.

[TECK]

... Of the 3.6 forums. It's pretty clear that most modifications will still work...
If the VB3.6 hacks use plugins, they will not work in 3.5.x and viceversa.
You will have to manually edit the plugin elements to match the new 3.6 architecture or the 3.5.x one.

[Wired1]

If the VB3.6 hacks use plugins, they will not work in 3.5.x and viceversa.
You will have to manually edit the plugin elements to match the new 3.6 architecture or the 3.5.x one.

are you stating that there is a significant change to the overall structure?

[TECK]

No, only the following line in the plugin must be adjusted for the new 3.6 plugins:
<plugin active="1" product="vb_mstats">
The new line should be:
<plugin active="1" executionorder="5" product="vb_mstats">
in order to have the plugins working in VB3.6, the actual 3.5.x plugins will not work.

[Boofo]

If the VB3.6 hacks use plugins, they will not work in 3.5.x and viceversa.
You will have to manually edit the plugin elements to match the new 3.6 architecture or the 3.5.x one.

The 3.5 ones should work on 3.6 just fine without the executionorder line. I wouldn't think you would HAVE to have that line to make the plug-in work.

[Zachery]

The 3.5 ones should work on 3.6 just fine without the executionorder line. I wouldn't think you would HAVE to have that line to make the plug-in work.
Shouldn't.

[Paul M]

You can import 3.5 plugins into 3.6 fine - they get allocated a default execution order of 5.

You cannot import them the other way as a database error is generated. If you manually add the executionorder column to your 3.5 database (plugin table) then you can import 3.6 plugins into 3.5 and they will work fine (as long as the hooks exist of course, many new ones were added to 3.6).

[peterska2]

I've come across quite a few 3.5 releases that don't work in 3.6 due to either clashes with new 3.6 functions or simply don't work. Although saying that about 60% or the ones I did try have worked fine.

This isn't anything to do with execution orders though, it's just plain and simply that the code has changed.

[Ohiosweetheart]

The 3.5 ones should work on 3.6 just fine without the executionorder line. I wouldn't think you would HAVE to have that line to make the plug-in work.

maybe you shouldn't have to but..... unfortunately not a single one of my hacks worked on my 3.6 test forum. I had to remove them all, one by one, to get my forum to work.

[Christine]

All of my products are working, although I did need to remove a few that made it to the core code.