|
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| svaha | Posted: 2006/3/6 19:53 Updated: 2006/3/6 19:53 |
Just can't stay away   Joined: 2003/8/2 From: Aelse Posts: 678 |
 Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended'That's a pity, because I like the 'style' of the 2.2 serie (as site admin) Is there a way to downgrade to 2.0.13-2 from 2.2.4? |
| Herko | Posted: 2006/3/6 20:03 Updated: 2006/3/6 20:03 |
Home away from home  Joined: 2002/2/4 From: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 4668 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' The
XOOPS 2.3/2.4 'series' which is still in active development, will be a
lot more then what XOOPS 2.2 brought to the users and site admins. In
fact, at a French XOOPSers meeting last weekend, the changes in XOOPS
2.3alpha were described as 'bigger than the changes fron XOOPS 1.3 to
2.0' (where the Smarty Template Engine was first introduced). So don't
think development has moved backwards  You should check the Core Development Site for more info on the alpha's and plans.
从2.2.4 降级到2.0.13-2（程式码叁考下面 here） As for a downgrade script, you can find that here. Herko |
| charpres | Posted: 2006/3/6 20:28 Updated: 2006/3/6 20:28 |
Not too shy to talk   Joined: 2003/9/4 From: Posts: 172 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' I
came to the conclusion that 2.2x was not going to work for me some time
ago. I moved everything "back" to stability and can now count on things
working the way they should. |
| seventhseal | Posted: 2006/3/6 21:33 Updated: 2006/3/6 21:33 |
Not too shy to talk  Joined: 2004/8/8 From: Lee's Summit, MO Posts: 134 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote: So don't think development has moved backwards You should check the Core Development Site for more info on the alpha's and plans. No offense, but with no updates on that site...  and missed deadlines... as one user asked - "no time for xoops?" |
| m0nty | Posted: 2006/3/6 21:45 Updated: 2006/3/6 21:45 |
Home away from home  Joined: 2003/10/25 From: Derbyshire/UK Posts: 3105 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' did they ever set a deadline? a deadline for what? skalpa has internet problems too at the moment, not through his fault either, but thats the way of the world.. and lol, deadlines are very very rarely met on any open source project, you should know that by now. this isn't a business where you get a warning and your wage cut etc for missing important deadlines.. |
| pemen | Posted: 2006/3/6 21:56 Updated: 2006/3/6 21:56 |
Not too shy to talk  Joined: 2002/7/8 From: France Posts: 173 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' While I'm working with skalpa on the LDAP integration, I confirm that the new 2.3 version will be a major evolution of XOOPS. And the admin interface will be entirely change toi a new one. |
| tempel33 | Posted: 2006/3/6 23:01 Updated: 2006/3/6 23:01 |
Just popping in  Joined: 2004/11/5 From: Posts: 4 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' I wish I would have known from the beginning that 2.2.4 is sort of a dead end. Sure, it will be supported, except that modules won't work in the future releases of XOOPS...  |
| xguide | Posted: 2006/3/6 23:46 Updated: 2006/3/6 23:46 |
Just popping in Joined: 2005/5/11 From: Posts: 4 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote: This is the original and one-and-only XOOPS website, not the XOOPS Cube website. PLease advertise other systems elsewhere. I don't understand why you still advertising Myth's Xoops 2.2 and Skalpa's Xoopsphere on Xoops.org and not the XOOPS 2.0.13a JP branch? If you're "refactoring xoops", why not move to Marc Andre domain's Xoopsphere.com? And create a new project and community? |
| m0nty | Posted: 2006/3/7 1:37 Updated: 2006/3/7 1:37 |
Home away from home Joined: 2003/10/25 From: Derbyshire/UK Posts: 3105 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' xguide wtf? 2.0.13a JP is xoops cube. but i'm pretty sure u already know that. xoosphere will be xoops 4, and xoops 2.2 is xoops.org project. and i'm sure you know that too. will people give it a #OOPS# break plugging other systems indirectly. |
| seventhseal | Posted: 2006/3/7 4:39 Updated: 2006/3/7 4:39 |
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2004/8/8 From: Lee's Summit, MO Posts: 134 |
 Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended'You're
right! Deadlines don't exist in OPEN world, so why bother talking about
milestone dates? Doesn't make any sense at all. Especially when the
last update on the devteam site was January 11 - hey, it's no skin off
our backsides. We *all* still make our money off what's available. So
what's the fuss about official/recommended/stable version - it's all
the same. It's kind of overkill if you think about it. But, if folks
feel better because someone says it's so - who am I to argue with
logic?  As I see it- the world of XOOPS is one big drama right now. The BIG race! There's some good and there's some evil. I could care less who "wins," because at the end of the day developers will develop to the demand and the 3PD will always win. Xoops is a great CMS but at a cross-roads. I am rooting for it all the way! XoopsCube - the new 2.1 alpha version just might be overkill. Can there possibly be any more abstraction layers between code and presentation? All for the sake of customization alternatives and security? And then we have Code-Plus - who knows what's going to come out of it? It's got a sexy look, but is it the same "big block chevy" underneath - my bet is yeah. There will alwyas be a new widget maker with a new widget. At the time, some developers may buy that widget. The smart developer will stay the course. We aren't the ones who would eventually get criticized for our lack of development effort - after all - it's FREE! |
| hervet | Posted: 2006/3/7 7:27 Updated: 2006/3/7 7:27 |
XOOPS Core Developer   Joined: 2003/11/4 From: France Posts: 1383 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' XOOPS核心程式開發 提出的
回答 Hello, For what I saw, the next Xoops will be, not a new release nor a new version but a complete revolution. 據我看, 下版Xoops 將是, 不是新發佈，亦不只是一個新版本， but 一次完全革新。 bye, Herv |
| alain01 | Posted: 2006/3/7 8:29 Updated: 2006/3/7 8:30 |
Just popping in  Joined: 2003/6/20 From: FRANCE Posts: 55 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' I agree with Hervet. For example, manage templates will be very easy : copy your file template from a module in the directory theme, modify this file and it runs your custumization... |
| davidl2 | Posted: 2006/3/7 9:11 Updated: 2006/3/7 9:11 |
Forum Moderator   Joined: 2003/5/26 From: Posts: 3149 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote: seventhseal: SVN was updated till fairly recently (couple of weeks) and since that time apparently Skalpa's had some internet connection issues ... (hey - it happens!) .. but he's been hard at work according to what i've heard just above this post... it's looking sexy |
| davidl2 | Posted: 2006/3/7 9:53 Updated: 2006/3/7 9:53 |
Forum Moderator Joined: 2003/5/26 From: Posts: 3149 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' And the Devteam site has now been updated |
| bluenova | Posted: 2006/3/7 9:57 Updated: 2006/3/7 9:57 |
Chief Moderator   Joined: 2004/4/10 From: Belgium Posts: 1031 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote: seventhseal: No, it's necessary for new users, who before didn't know which version to use. |
| Mowaffak | Posted: 2006/3/7 10:30 Updated: 2006/3/7 11:17 |
Quite a regular   Joined: 2004/11/28 From: Libya Posts: 348 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' |
| seventhseal | Posted: 2006/3/7 13:30 Updated: 2006/3/7 13:30 |
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2004/8/8 From: Lee's Summit, MO Posts: 134 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote: For what I saw, the next Xoops will be, not a new release nor a new version but a complete revolution. Herv - you are a person of few words - but I like how you "preach!" Quote: For example, manage templates will be very easy : That is going to be great! Quote: No, it's necessary for new users, who before didn't know which version to use. Point taken - but if that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to take the link to any 2.2.x download away? To me, the if 2.0.13.x is the recommended, and the work Skalpa is doing (and I wish I could buy him plenty 'o Mt. Dew (or beer) to code plenty 'o faster!), then 2.2.x is a useless link. That being said, I have many sites running both - although I have my own hardening in place, 2.2.x has been no problem at all... Quote: This article has been translated to arabic I don't know why, but I just like looking at your site! It's the arabic or soemthing. I can't read a bit of it, but it looks really cool! I mean that!  |
| gtop00 | Posted: 2006/3/7 16:48 Updated: 2006/3/7 17:24 |
Friend of XOOPS   Joined: 2004/11/13 From: Athens, Greece Posts: 203 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Dear all, One of the most important reasons for someone to choose xoops 2.2.x is the EXTENDED PROFILES. Some of us (still) need the convenience that it gives and DO NOT want to use hacks. I guess Myth wanted to solve this As long as and if xoops 2.0.x (2.3)solve this Edited to avoid misunderstandings... |
| orgunozcu | Posted: 2006/3/7 17:16 Updated: 2006/3/7 17:16 |
Just popping in Joined: 2005/9/1 From: Posts: 61 |
i couldn't understand.. Sorry my english is not so good..
what does this article mean?? is 2.13.2 finished... is it googd or bad?? or what..?? should we leave 2.13.2??? please answer.. my all xoops 2.13.2... if it is not good.. 我的英文不是那麼好的。 |
| gtop00 | Posted: 2006/3/7 17:27 Updated: 2006/3/7 17:27 |
Friend of XOOPS Joined: 2004/11/13 From: Athens, Greece Posts: 203 |
Re: i couldn't understand.. Quote: ...is therefore recommended for use on production websites. That says all.- |
| orgunozcu | Posted: 2006/3/7 17:31 Updated: 2006/3/7 17:31 |
Just popping in Joined: 2005/9/1 From: Posts: 61 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' so.. 2.13.2 is good and i can go on using it?? am i?? |
| wtravel | Posted: 2006/3/7 17:58 Updated: 2006/3/7 17:58 |
XOOPS Management Team   Joined: 2003/8/27 From: The Netherlands Posts: 816 |
XOOPS 管理小組 提出的
回答 Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended'orgunozcu, yes you can use 2.13.2. It is good. orgunozcu, 您能使用2.13.2 。它是好的。 |
| orgunozcu | Posted: 2006/3/7 18:13 Updated: 2006/3/7 18:13 |
Just popping in Joined: 2005/9/1 From: Posts: 61 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' wtravel thanks you can understand my english.. and i can understand your english.. thankss |
| barryc | Posted: 2006/3/7 18:28 Updated: 2006/3/7 18:33 |
Quite a regular  Joined: 2004/3/20 From: Sweet Home, Oregon Posts: 210 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' I
agree and I look forward to an upgrade path from 2.2.4 to 2.4. I assume
that optional fields, as in the Extended Profiles of 2.2.4 will be
available in 2.4 and that the upgrade script will convert them? 2.2.4 seems pretty stable to me. I have found only one problem recently, and that is that I cannot enter dates correctly into a date field. If I enter 2006/1/1, using the admin pages (modules/profile/admin/user.php) for example, only 2006 ends up in the db record. If I edit my own profile from the Edit Account link (i.e. modules/profile/edituser.php) entries in a date field are accepted correctly. If anyone knows a fix, please let me know. If I don't find a solution soon, I'll post to the proper forum. Barry |
| hervet | Posted: 2006/3/7 19:12 Updated: 2006/3/7 19:12 |
XOOPS Core Developer Joined: 2003/11/4 From: France Posts: 1383 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' The
french community will soon publish a "compte rendu" (also available in
english) of a meeting we had this week end with Skalpa |
| nachenko | Posted: 2006/3/8 8:53 Updated: 2006/3/8 8:56 |
Just popping in  Joined: 2005/1/18 From: Posts: 38 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Ups. I've used Xoops 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 on my three latest websites. The one that will have the strongest workload is the one with 2.2.3, but it uses pretty conventional modules (WF-Sections, a heavily hacked News 1.4, WF-Channel, WF-Channel Clone). They work fine at this moment. Some minor bugs on the mailing and password system, fixed by myself with the help of the forums. SHould I be worried? |
| phppp | Posted: 2006/3/8 9:08 Updated: 2006/3/8 9:11 |
XOOPS Core Developer  Joined: 2004/1/25 From: Beijing <- Montreal Posts: 1419 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' XOOPS核心小组的程式设计师 提出的回答
A little more clarification, as well as response to barryc's comment "2.2.4 seems pretty stable to me":
The advice for using 2.0* is made mainly upon the consideraton of sustainable (or compliant) behavior for future XOOPS releases, and a variety of unpected changes in XOOPS 2.2*, which __could__ lead to not good performance. Should I be worried if I am using XOOPS 2.2*? I don't think so. It's fine to downgrade to 2.0132, but it is also ok to stay with your current 2.2* till 2.4 comes out if the 2.2* works fine for you.
一点点澄清，回应 barryc's comment：2.2.4似乎对我相当稳定
建议使用2.0* 主要是考虑到适应 未来的XOOPS版本 和XOOPS 2.2*非预期的变化，可能导致不好的表现 我应该担心？如果我使用 XOOPS2.2* 我不认为 要降级 到2.0132很好,但如果你的2.2*表现很好，你也可以停留在目前的2.2*直到2.4出来 |
| andersa | Posted: 2006/3/8 9:43 Updated: 2006/3/8 9:43 |
Just popping in Joined: 2004/5/27 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 43 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Thanks
for that note phppp. 2.2.x DOES work fine for me. My co-maintainers at
the main site I am running were getting bald spots from pulling hair
out of their heads because of the admittedly not so intuitive
administration interface on 2.0.x. Just the menu system in the admin interface alone makes the 2.2 upgrade worthwhile for me. I am sticking with 2.2 |
| bluenova | Posted: 2006/3/8 9:54 Updated: 2006/3/8 9:55 |
Chief Moderator Joined: 2004/4/10 From: Belgium Posts: 1031 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote:
Poster: seventhseal Posted: 2006/3/7 No, because there are functions in 2.2.X that users were crying out for that are not available in the 2.0.X series. So the choice is there depending on the needs of the enduser. No, 因为2.2.X有的功能 是使用者crying out 产生，是在2.0.X没有的 所以 选择要不要用, 决定於end user的需要 |
| nachenko | Posted: 2006/3/8 9:57 Updated: 2006/3/8 9:57 |
Just popping in Joined: 2005/1/18 From: Posts: 38 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Thanks PHPPP. |
| seventhseal | Posted: 2006/3/8 12:38 Updated: 2006/3/8 12:38 |
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2004/8/8 From: Lee's Summit, MO Posts: 134 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote: Quote: user's crying out  And many of them have moved on to create their own widget - may the force be with them...  My point originally was more a rhetorical question, with me answering myself. 2.2.x works just fine. 2.0.13.x is the RECOMMENDED version if you are either new to the whole XOOPS experience, or just can't decide on your own. I think it's a fine move, and I look forward to 2.4! Anyone running 2.2.x is not going to have any more problems, any more risk of hack, any fewer mods to run - than anyone running 2.0.13.x. So, all great comments and retorts - but as a 3PD, I don't see the fuss. Kind regards to all! |
| bluenova | Posted: 2006/3/8 12:48 Updated: 2006/3/8 12:48 |
Chief Moderator Joined: 2004/4/10 From: Belgium Posts: 1031 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Quote:
Poster: seventhseal Posted: 2006/3/8 I can asure you from a support point of view on xoops.org, we had many requests for the features available in 2.2.X (mainly regarding 'Extended Profiles' to be implemented. The fact remains now, that we have 1 version which is very stable and 1 version with many features that the very stable version lacks. So the need to have both versions available still exists. Hopefully once we get to xoops 2.4 this will all be put behind us, and we can move on with 1 product. 我们得到 很多要求 2.2.X要有更多功能（主要是Extended Profiles的应用） 但事实........不稳定......................... ....bla....你若要求Extended Profiles 就安装Xoops2.2.X..... |
| Chappy | Posted: 2006/3/8 14:00 Updated: 2006/3/8 14:00 |
Friend of XOOPS  Joined: 2002/12/14 From: Texas Posts: 384 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Does the downgrade script work on 2.2.4? Also, I am running 2.2.4 at the moment. IT's working quite nicely. From all the discussion, I am still unclear. Is it better for me to downgrade to 2.0.13 so that I am ready for the next version (2.3), or better to wait for the 2.4 version significantly further out? Thanks! |
| m0nty | Posted: 2006/3/8 14:08 Updated: 2006/3/8 14:08 |
Home away from home Joined: 2003/10/25 From: Derbyshire/UK Posts: 3105 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' as far as i'm aware the downgrade script does work with 2.2.4 (tho i haven't used it myself) it's your choice really chappy, if you need the extended profiles then you'd be best staying on 2.2.4.. but it they aren't really necessary then the better option would be to downgrade, especially if you actually want to follow the upgrade paths from 2.0.x to 2.3 etc. otherwise as you say you're stuck with 2.2.4 till 2.4 version |
| Chappy | Posted: 2006/3/8 22:06 Updated: 2006/3/8 22:06 |
Friend of XOOPS Joined: 2002/12/14 From: Texas Posts: 384 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Thanks, m0nty! I really like 2.2.4, having worked through most of the issues, I think. But, I prefer the clearer upgrade path. As always, I appreciate your help and comments. |
| andersa | Posted: 2006/3/8 22:19 Updated: 2006/3/8 22:19 |
Just popping in Joined: 2004/5/27 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 43 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' I
don't see what isn't clear about the upgrade path from 2.2.x. An
upgrade to 2.4 (or Xoops 3 or whatever it will be numbered) has been
promised. It seems crystal clear to me. |
| rowdie | Posted: 2006/3/8 22:28 Updated: 2006/3/8 22:28 |
XOOPS Core Developer Joined: 2004/7/21 From: Posts: 750 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' I'd
recommend you stay with your working 2.2.4 site. There's no reason to
downgrade if you have no issues with it, and you will be able to
upgrade when the next version (in your case XOOPS 2.4) reaches a final
release. Rowd |
| charpres | Posted: 2006/3/8 23:03 Updated: 2006/3/8 23:03 |
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2003/9/4 From: Posts: 172 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Here's my take on 2.2x vs. 2.0.13x: Yes, if you have one or the other working, by all means stick with it. I have used both in different configurations on different servers. However, I have found that an installation of 2.2x with certain modules may not work on one particular sever but will work fine on another! 2.0.13x with the same configurations did not have any problems with either server. Perhaps a few dozen hours of troubleshooting could have fixed the problems, but in my particular situation there was no compelling reason to stay with 2.2x so it was an easy choice to return to 2.0.13.x. Everyone needs to decide, as stated several times in this thread, whether 2.2x has some feature that cannot be resisted. Otherwise, I would stick with the "recommended" version and wait, unless 2.2x is already being used. |
| zzzzsg | Posted: 2006/3/9 1:07 Updated: 2006/3/9 1:07 |
Just popping in Joined: 2005/12/22 From: Posts: 82 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended So are you saying Xoops 2.2.x is a mistake? What a pity. Because I prefer 2.2.x to 2.0.1x. So what should I do now? Downgrade to 2.0.1? Or wait for the 2.3 or 2.4 to come out? I also don't quite understand this << even if we'll ensure users can upgrade to future versions, a full compatibility between these versions and modules specially made for 2.2.x cannot be guaranteed and that they may have to be updated to work on XOOPS 2.4+. >> Are you saying that 2.3 and 2.4 won't be compatible with 2.2 modules? If that is the case, 2.2 is really a dead end?? And you cannot even upgrade from 2.2 to 2.3 or 2.4 without messing up asome modules??? This is terrible. Whose idea is it to create 2.2 in the first place??? What do I do? Guess I will stick to 2.2. And when 2.3 or 2.4 comes - rebuild my entire site! Gui |
| davidl2 | Posted: 2006/3/9 1:34 Updated: 2006/3/9 1:34 |
Forum Moderator Joined: 2003/5/26 From: Posts: 3149 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended I'm quite sure this is explained pretty well.. but lets retry: Quote: So what should I do now? Downgrade to 2.0.1? Or wait for the 2.3 or 2.4 to come out? If everything works fine for you with 2.2.4, then stick with it. Quote: Are you saying that 2.3 and 2.4 won't be compatible with 2.2 modules? Xoops 2.3 will probably not work with all 2.2.x Modules. Xoops 2.4 however should be fine. Quote: And you cannot even upgrade from 2.2 to 2.3 or 2.4 without messing up asome modules??? 2.2.x should be able to upgrade to 2.4. 2.2.x will not be able to upgrade to 2.3. 2.2.x可以升级到2.4
2.2.x不可以升级到2.3 Quote: What do I do? Guess I will stick to 2.2. And when 2.3 or 2.4 comes - rebuild my entire site! No, when 2.4 comes you can upgrade. When 2.3 comes, you will have to wait a while i'm afraid. |
| Chappy | Posted: 2006/3/9 2:01 Updated: 2006/3/9 2:01 |
Friend of XOOPS Joined: 2002/12/14 From: Texas Posts: 384 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended I think it is explained somewhat well.
For me, at least, the broader issue is that those who have followed the
2.2 route will now have to wait until 2.4 to come up to speed. Unless,
that is, they downgrade to 2.0.13. That, I think, gives a lot of pause
leaving us wanting to make sure and carefully wiegh those choices and
make certain we understand them and their implications. I'm not
being critical, but given the rate of releases, that's a major
consideration (that 2.4 is probably a significant way off). So, when
the issue of clarity is raised, I think that that is the greater issue,
not whether the path is spelled out (though I would say that that may
also be a little confusing). One more point, I tried running the downgrade script before I read all the good feedback from you folks. It does not work on 2.2.4. It bogs down when you go to downgrade the "blocks": It gives an undefined function error on line 690. |
| peterr | Posted: 2006/3/9 6:10 Updated: 2006/3/9 6:10 |
Quite a regular Joined: 2004/8/5 From: here Posts: 303 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended Ok, so if there is a 'new' XOOPS site being built, following the 'recommended' path, then 2.0.13.2 should be used. :D (I see there are more than double the number of downloads for 2.2.3a final though, so we have to assume a LOT more people are running 2.2.x sites). I downloaded 2.0.13.2 and noticed it included quite a number of modules, something that 2.2.x series doesn't do, I think (apart from private messaging and extended profiles). These modules in 2.0.13.2 would no doubt also be the recommended modules, although modules can be replaced , like 'liaise' to replace the 'contact' module, for example, etc,etc. We are testing a number of modules on a 2.2.4 site, and don't know if these modules are 'safe' or not (i.e. not being part of the 'core' module release included in 2.0.13.2). Some modules are trying to cater for 'all' series though, like CBB, version 3.01: Quote:
Whilst we are on the subject of 'recommended', is there a list/doc somewhere of recommended modules, in terms of safety/security issues. Also, with version 2.0.13.2, can an anonymous user see profile details, and can other profile information be 'hidden', like the username/loginname ?? Thanks, Peter |
| ICHI_UK | Posted: 2006/3/9 10:40 Updated: 2006/3/9 10:40 |
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2005/11/1 From: Blackpool, UK Posts: 179 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended Look forward to being able to get the new version, due to having serious issues with 2.0.13.2 and the INVALID SUBMISSION ERROR |
| preachur | Posted: 2006/3/10 21:42 Updated: 2006/3/10 21:42 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/2/4 From: Colorado, U.S.A. Posts: 21 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended I
just want to stress.... back up your database before trying to use that
downgrade script. I lost a whole website and over 80 users because I
forgot to back up my stuff first, and then the downgrade script killed
everything. I ended up staying with 2.2.3 anyway because it was easier
just to re-install it and re-configure everything. The problem I have
now is I can't re-sql the user database with my OLD backup for some
reason. I was able to restore almost everything else. Even the forum
posts, although they now alll say they were posted by nregistered
Users." |
| kjk786 | Posted: 2006/3/11 18:46 Updated: 2006/3/11 18:46 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/1/26 From: Posts: 30 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended I upgrade my 3 sites from 2.0.* to 2.2.4 one month back Now I hope I can soon upgrade to 2.4 I will wait till xoops release 2.4 so I can upgrade |
| Chappy | Posted: 2006/3/12 4:30 Updated: 2006/3/12 4:30 |
Friend of XOOPS Joined: 2002/12/14 From: Texas Posts: 384 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended I had the exact same experience. Lost it all. To boot, because of some issues with mysql version - I guess per this post
- it is seeming near impossible to get it back up to speed. This was on
a 2.2 site. THe downgrade script did fine until it got to the downgrade
of the blocks and through a undefined function error on the getBlocks
function (line 690 if memory serves). Anyway, from my experience, I'd
use caution as well before doing this... |
| preachur | Posted: 2006/3/13 2:50 Updated: 2006/3/13 2:50 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/2/4 From: Colorado, U.S.A. Posts: 21 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended After
this bad experience I decided to experiment. If you have the ability to
run a SQL query on your database you can save your site. If your
downgrade goes bad, and it seems like you have lost everything: 1) Upload all files from the XOOPS 2.0.13.1 to 2.2.3 Final Upgrade package onto your server EXCEPT the install directory. 2) Run the query on your database using the mysql.structure text file in the install/sql folder. Then you will be able to get back in to your administration and update all of your modules again. I wish I had tried this before I started all over. It could have avoided allot of work, AND it could have saved my users a bunch of grief as well. |
| svaha | Posted: 2006/3/13 14:24 Updated: 2006/3/13 14:24 |
Just can't stay away Joined: 2003/8/2 From: Aelse Posts: 678 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended Is there anyone who has succesfuly downgraded from 2.2.x to 2.0.13? If not then the downgrade script is useless as it is now and should be improved or removed. |
| gibaphp | Posted: 2006/4/11 12:04 Updated: 2006/4/11 12:04 |
Just can't stay away  Joined: 2003/4/26 From: Brasil - SP - Guarulhos Posts: 410 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended DownGrade no Work ? Whats Scripts ? Sorry, i not found it. Giba |
| JMorris | Posted: 2006/4/11 13:10 Updated: 2006/4/11 13:10 |
XOOPS Management Team  Joined: 2004/4/11 From: Percolating Posts: 1882 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended XOOPS 管理小组：
You can get the downgrade script here: 你可以取得降级程式码 ： http://www.xoops.org/modules/core/singlefile.php?cid=4&lid=124You can view a site that migrated from 2.2.3 to 2.0.13.x, with only minimal problems, here: 从 2.2.3到 2.0.13 只有一点点小问题 ，叁考下面网站
http://mywebresource.com/In other words, the downgrade script does work. Just make sure you backup your files and database before you begin. 降级程式码可以运作 但 要确定备份 files and database 在你开始降级之前 |
| gibaphp | Posted: 2006/4/13 10:58 Updated: 2006/4/13 10:58 |
Just can't stay away Joined: 2003/4/26 From: Brasil - SP - Guarulhos Posts: 410 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended @JMorris - Thanks
Quote:
This site working in 2.0.13.2 , very good. . Just make sure you backup your files and database before you begin. 确定备份 files and database 在你开始降级之前 |
| Chappy | Posted: 2006/4/23 7:41 Updated: 2006/4/23 7:44 |
Friend of XOOPS Joined: 2002/12/14 From: Texas Posts: 384 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended Thanks,
JMorris, for your reply. Thanks also for taking some leadership during
this difficult time for xoops. As to this comment, I can assure that I
tried several times to get the downgrade scriopt to work. Each time, as
I noted above, Quote: The downgrade script did fine until it got to the downgrade of the blocks and threw an undefined function error on the getBlocks function (line 690 if memory serves). I was unable to go any further past that point with nothing but blank pages. And, I did back up, it was just that the backup was only partial, due, I imagine, to a cpanel screwup. Anyway, just want folks to approach the downgrade script with a great deal of caution. For whatever reason it does NOT work in some cases, as some of the comments here demonstrate. Perhaps if folks are able to work through that Blocks function error, it might be easily corrected. But, not on mine. Perhaps the fact that the script is meant to downgrade from 2.2.3 instead of 2.2.4 created the block function error. Whatever, it didn't work, and I generally have a fairly good idea what I'm doing (except when it gets to coding). |
| JMorris | Posted: 2006/4/29 2:47 Updated: 2006/4/29 2:47 |
XOOPS Management Team Joined: 2004/4/11 From: Percolating Posts: 1882 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended Valid points. Not every situation is the same. I had minimal problems (most related to the block routine). The trick is to set your templates to default, disable (not uninstall) all your modules (except system), and I believe I even had to remove all my custom blocks (just kept a backup in a text file). The downgrade wasn't 100% error free. There were still some small data losses and a good deal of reconfiguring to do, but it was a far lot less painful than copying and pasting data in PHPMyAdmin from one branch to the next. But again, you're points are valid. Extreme care should be taken when performing such drastic operations. Best Regards, James |
| Chappy | Posted: 2006/5/14 4:48 Updated: 2006/5/14 4:48 |
Friend of XOOPS Joined: 2002/12/14 From: Texas Posts: 384 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended It's time to eat some crow... After having tried shis script several times, I finally got it to work full and completely. After reading the instructions more carefully, I realized that the 2.0.13.2 was supposed to be uploaded (2.2.4 overwritten) before the downgrade script was run. For whatever reason, I thought you uploaded 2.0.13.2 after the script was run. Yes, I did have to reset many group permissions, blocks, etc, but it was indeed better than the alternative. And, I did note a performance inprovement. Anyway, I didn't want my comments to unnecessarily drive people away. Just make sure to upload 2.0.13.2 first then follow the instructions that are listed above and with the script. |
| srmcatee | Posted: 2006/6/2 17:18 Updated: 2006/6/2 17:18 |
Just popping in Joined: 2005/8/22 From: Rock Island, Illinois Posts: 19 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' I
concur. Xoops needs to support and keep a clean upgrade path. This
backward move damages the project and the view of Xoops to the
OpenSource community. Xoops has to support and provide forward upgrade paths for releases it deemed "stable". |
| wizanda | Posted: 2006/6/2 17:37 Updated: 2006/6/2 17:37 |
Just can't stay away  Joined: 2004/3/21 From: Nottingham,UK Posts: 696 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled 'recommended' Yeh this is why 2.0.14 to bridge the gap, this is like 3-4 months old news.. |
| camauz | Posted: 2006/6/7 14:37 Updated: 2006/6/7 14:37 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/1/16 From: Marcon - Venezia - Italia Posts: 6 |
Re: XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended I'm
developing an e-commerce module for Xoops 2.2.4 and some performance
problems has been found. At first time I though my home PC was not
powerful enought, but this is ever a bad idea... My opinion: it's better to come back and re-build then build on trash. If you think 2.2.x code is not a good code, abandoning it may be a good idea. Cheers |
