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.

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.

But then people running 3.5 will see a mod and think its 3.6 only ;).

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?

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"

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.

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.

Well is anything going to be done about this?

There will be an announcement concerning this soon.

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?