Vanilla 2 timeline & status

Linc

This is my unofficial summary to help newcomers get up to speed.

There is no timeline for a Vanilla 2 beta, release candidate, or other official version. There is no estimate, nor a "no sooner than" mark.

The current priority is VanillaForums.com stability and profitability. The major roadblock to official release is cross-platform testing, which is prioritized after the VanillaForums.com goals.

When there is more information or even an estimate, it will be readily volunteered; you needn't ask.

You may download and install the current version from GitHub (note the requirements and process). It isn't recommended for novice or non-developers, though. There is no guaranteed upgrade path; it's entirely possible at some point you would need to edit your database manually to upgrade. It's also possible that a new version on GitHub could break something; it isn't thoroughly vetted between commits. Therefore: don't use this on a commercial site that you can't afford to have broken while you work through an upgrade or bug.

In the meantime, Vanilla 1 is a fully-tested and vetted product ready for production, and there will certainly be an official upgrade path to Vanilla 2 upon its first official release.

Thanks for your patience and enthusiasm!

sagar

Interesting, when I raised this sometime back I was contradicted. Its clear that focus is about earning $$ on VF.com than releasing VF2

http://vanillaforums.org/discussion/comment/99210/#Comment_99210

Linc

@sagar It was my best understanding at that time from what I'd read on this forum. All I've done here, again, is summarize what I now know. I don't speak for Mark and Todd, I'm just trying to be helpful as a community member.

There is more to the backend of VF.com than just the core V2 code.

Roguefoxx

I have to say it was pretty disheartening to read this. I guess I should have known.

Linc

@Roguefoxx I don't find it disheartening at all; I'm rather excited they're building something sustainable to bring more development efforts to bear on the Vanilla 2 core.

Roguefoxx

@Lincoln I can absolutely see that side of it as well.

Stash

@sagar and @Roguefoxx, I honestly don't see what you have against this. The devs have got to eat right? They could have just close sourced the entire thing and then you wouldn't be getting V2 ever. I'm just saying.

If you want to help speed up getting V2 released, then start submitting patches or at the very least bug reports in the issue tracker.

Look at it this way - after V1 was released there were large periods of time when @Mark had no time to develop it while he was doing other projects in order to earn a living. If he and @Todd can pull off earning a living from vanillaforums.com then this won't happen with V2 since as they earn their living they will effectively be pushing forward the development on V2 as well.

Please don't begrudge people earning a living first when they are giving you stuff for free.

Roguefoxx

@[-Stash-] I didn't begrudge anyone here. I also stated I could see both sides of the matter. Chill out and find another congregation to preach to.

bobtheman

i have a few ideas and comments I would like to bring about.
@Lincoln "I don't find it disheartening at all; I'm rather excited they're building something sustainable to bring more development efforts to bear on the Vanilla 2 core. " i agree, the success of vf financially is important to everyone involved.

but, would it be possible to discuss income options, ideas, and the statistics of our current setup as a community.

the second part, and in my opinion the most important is this

"There is no guaranteed upgrade path; it's entirely possible at some point you would need to edit your database manually to upgrade. It's also possible that a new version on GitHub could break something; it isn't thoroughly vetted between commits. Therefore: don't use this on a commercial site that you can't afford to have broken while you work through an upgrade or bug."

I understand a disclaimer of using v2 from the developmental branch and that it may be unstable for live production sites, but the questions that the community continues to ask are valid. If v2 is developed far enough to be used on vf.com and vf.org, with or without the backing of expert developers, the community feels its only fair to use the same product. Users on the vf website experience v2, not v1. And this could, i'll go as far to say IS, causing distaste to users. Not because v1 isnt an outstanding product, but because the even better mind blowing experience they've had with v2 on the live website isnt what they receive or are "recommended" to use. How is it that v2 is stable enough for vf.com users and potential customers but not stable enough for the rest of us. Sure paying customers would be entitled to some form of support, but if every paying customers setup is having to receive "MANUAL DATABASE UPDATES" as this announcement warns us, this seems counterintuitive, work intensive, and anti-productive. I'm sure this isnt the case nor is this desired by anyone in the community.

Linc

@bobtheman

How is it that v2 is stable enough for vf.com users and potential customers but not stable enough for the rest of us.

Precisely as stated (and linked) above, it's an issue of platform testing. It's vastly simpler to test for THIS platform than to make it foolproof for EVERY platform.

I'd rather have you call me paranoid than have a non-developer end up with a broken website.

I'm fine with using Vanilla 2 on my sites, but that's because I'm a PHP developer and am confident in my ability to patch and update on the fly. If you are too, go for it.

VF.org is running on Vanilla 2 for bug testing, of course. If we can't try it out here, then where? I don't understand your point about paying customers; they receive their updates automatically through VF.com so there's nothing "manual" about it for them.

If your point is that "they should release the scripts" - they do. But what happens if you happen to grab the new version off GitHub and update before they release the accompanying database upgrade script? I think you're seeing plots where there's only concern for preventing accidents.

Anyway, I only posted this to unofficially summarize, not to present new info. I'm just rehashing what's been said elsewhere (most of it repeatedly). I'm not their spokesman.

56jasper

@bobtheman The answer is simple, my friend. It's because VF.com won't be making money if they release the "good version" to public - people will use that instead of signing up for VF.com. In addition, competitors might popup.

The aim of VF.com is to gain certain amount user-base and make money. Plain and simple.

bobtheman

@Lincoln by no means am I questioning you, im just offering my opinion to contribute to the discussion. You Good Sir are a very active member and i thank you for that. My comments are constructive in nature.

to summarize, i think a solution would be an immediate alpha release that supports updating to future alpha and beta and eventually the final product releases. So users would be suggested to use alpha/beta versions that are tested and supported and only update when their admin dashboards tell them there is a new version out. instead of updating and using the latest github which is not fully supported as you've pointed out. The only issue here that i foresee is that users will use alpha/beta releases and testing on github master will decrease. Im not sure if this is even an issue though this may be a benefit.

Linc

@56jasper That is false.

Linc

@bobtheman I think the core issue is simply that they're not prepared for the inundation of bug tickets any "release" (regardless of label) would generate.

Mark

@56jasper - If it were really that easy, we would just go closed source. We believe in open source, and we are extremely dedicated to being an open source company despite every investor, friend, developer, fan, and even competitor telling us otherwise. It's very easy to flippantly pass judgement on us, but ask anyone who's met us and you'll know the truth.

bobtheman

@56jasper
thats not true. anything vf releases will be released with a GPL version, though they do offer other alternatives but VF promises they will also release under gpl ... correct me if im wrong @Mark .. also this would be great to have up in the Docs on the pages "license", "Mission Statement". defining what vf stands for, our mission etc etc. A VF philosophy if you will.

vf.com offers a difference in deliverance and convenience. You are paying for a service. Paying customers may receive additional space on their hosting account, custom domain names, personal support, advertisement opportunities, so on and so forth.

bobtheman

i took to long to post my reply lol... but the updates to the pages in docs for a VF philosophy, and updating the mission statement to show our stance on opensource software is important.

bobtheman

@Lincoln
im sure your right, cross platform testing seems to be a common issue that i read about.

shah2010

Here are my suggestion;

1. reduce the fees for vf.com packages to a v small amount. include everything for $100/year. dont complicate and confuse us, we get scared of $1 this $3 that. and also let the user own data.

2. charge a 'keep us up' fee for every download of vf $10.00

3. find a small developer company to serve the user community for installation, design, development needs and to do income sharing with you. get them to have standard prices as well.

4. and dont frustrate us vf lovers.

kaos

@lincoln thanks for this its great

veki

@Lincoln - This post is very good source of information. I think that hole community will appreciate it. I will go live with this version on my website. It will be something like "Beta forum" like Gmail was in beta for few years )