Please upgrade here. These earlier versions are no longer being updated and have security issues.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
Options
youtube ???
This discussion has been closed.
Answers
This was fixed months ago in master branch for the upcoming 2.1 release.
Yeah, that's how to get developers to help you for free, trivialize their work. Classy.
@Lincoln you've got to be kidding me. Your last comment in this thread,** in July 2011**, was 'Nope' in response to a question about fixing a regex. It's hard to trivialize that.
And you'll note that nobody was helped here, for free or otherwise. It took a user -- me, in this case, to go ahead and fix it.
Interacting with your userbase with blunt single word negative responses to requests for help, then insulting them when, out of desperation, they fix problems that should be trivial for core devs to fix themselves, upwards of a year later? Also pretty classy, if not very professional.
Whether you realize it or not, the way that you treat your userbase is picked up and informs the way that users interact with each other , which is perhaps why there's such a toxic atmosphere around here these days. Seriously, even if you weren't a core dev, it's kind of rule #1 in trying to have reasonable online discussion that even if you're angry, you should direct your ire at the argument, not the person.
It's splendid that the fix was made in 2.1. Thanks for that. Unfortunately, though, the vast majority of people using Vanilla on their live sites aren't actually using 2.1 yet, as I'm sure you're aware. Thus my frustration earlier, and the reason I took time out of my day to find a fix and offer it to other users.
Read again. I said it was fixed months ago. Several issues were fixed related to that regex actually, not just what you noted. And, this topic has been covered elsewhere.
I don't really understand this us/them "user" thing you have going on. I'm a user too. I work for Vanilla as a result of working on the open source product in my free time. Your indignation is misdirected.
Read again. I replied with a "single blunt word" when asked about the 2.0.18 release date. We never give ETAs, it's a tired question, AND I surely hope it's self-explanatory that it was released not long after that. There was nothing to elaborate about, and I took the time to follow the discussion and reply to a posed question.
Furthermore, I haven't insulted you, I pointed out your rude behavior.
The way I'm interacting with the user base is to make sure they aren't jerks to core developers or anyone else.
>
Really? I'd love a link -- I couldn't find any other threads that seemed to deal with this specific issue. And, here's thing, you may well have changed it back in the day, but it wasn't fixed in a version that actually got released. Or somehow it got unfixed again in 2.0.18.4. I don't know.
>
Oh, I remember your user name since 1.x days, and I appreciate the years of work you've put into the project. I don't have any us-versus-them 'thing' going on though, honestly. But if you wear a 'Vanilla developer' sig line in your posts, it is a natural thing to assume for users less versed in the history of the project than me to assume you speak, when you do, in an official capacity. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?
I've just reread the exchange, and though it seems reasonable to believe that that was actually what you were replying to -- the inquiry about the existence of a drop date for the new Vanilla version -- I would hope that you could see that it looks like you saying 'Nope' in response to the existence of an ETA for a fix for the short links problem. At least it still kinda does to me -- the two questions got pretty badly conflated in the discussion.
That impression, to the casual reader, is reinforced by the fact that the problem isn't actually fixed. And further reinforced by you saying upthread that it is now fixed in 2.1... or am I misunderstanding here, and you are saying that it was supposed to be fixed in 2.0.18.x? Because, you know, that was the whole reason I posted a new regex -- it isn't.
My rude behaviour? Come on man, I'm Canadian too (well, assuming you are, here), so I've got that Canuck hypersensitivity to rudeness, but seriously, if anyone has been rude here, I'm going to suggest it wasn't me.
Look, calling someone 'classy' -- by which you meant 'not at all classy', of course, in an attempt to shame me, I guess -- is precisely an insult. It's making it personal. Rather than dealing the topic at hand, or even the way someone is saying something, it's a statement about the person. It's the classical ad hominem.
But let's leave that aside, maybe.
I begin to get a weird feeling that we're talking at complete crosspurposes here. I don't understand how me declaring that I thought (and this is how I understood things as when I offered the regex change earlier) it was ridiculous
a) for something relatively simple to go unfixed, despite core developers knowing about the problem, for 10 months and more
b) for me to have to go in and trawl through core to find out where the problem lay and fix it myself (when presumably that would be a matter of minutes for people actually familiar with the code)
c) to offer that fix to the community
d) when the last word on the issue had been 'Nope' from core developers
is rude, or out of line at all. The only thing I can think here is that either I'm misunderstanding some key part of this, or you misunderstood some key part of what I'm saying.
From my perspective, if this was the first version out the door, OK, maybe it should be pushed so far down the stack that it remained unfixed after 10 months of putting out fires, but it's been -- what? -- a year or two since 2.x hit the streets, and I would have thought we'd be at the point where things would be relatively stable, and small fixes like this would be happening in relatively timely fashion.
Honestly -- the only thing I can think here is that you believe that the problem was fixed in 2.0.18 (or earlier) and so you think I'm just having a go at you.
I'm not -- it really was broken when I investigated last week, and after searching the forum here to see if I could find some history on it, I discovered this thread, and was shocked to see what I understood to be the 'final word' on it from mid last year, so I went off and fixed it, and offered a possible solution here.
Well, my friend, I'm going to suggest, again, that perhaps you aren't setting as good an example as you think you are. I'll have you know I AM A VERY CLASSY LADY. [Note: I am not a lady.]
Look, I don't know what's going on that Tim a few days ago and now you are so sensitive to comments I've been making. I did not intend to become a lightning rod or gadfly or anything at all other than a slightly disgruntled developer, diving back in and trying to get his forums off of 1.x and on to 2.x a year after a year or two of waiting for the dust to settle and finding the functionality of the new version not quite there yet.
I really do not believe I have been rude -- in fact, I've made efforts to be reasonable, to write at length, in complete sentences, and try and give some justification for my criticism, and to assert at every turn that I support and believe (or have believed, in past) in the project -- and I don't think my criticisms are out of line or unreasonable in any way.
How have I been a jerk, seriously?
As I said to Tim the other day -- I apologize to have given offense, if I did so. But you guys seem... overly sensitive to negative comments, which does kind of surprise me.
I don't want to fight, particularly with the guys who are working on this tool that I have so much investment in of my own, in time and effort. I probably pissed in the pool by coming in here again after such a long time and making so much noise, and there's no going back from that, and so it goes.
But I will continue to try and do what I can to help other users, share stuff that I've found or put together and is generalizable as an Addon (I uploaded a new Addon a couple of days ago as a kind of gesture of good faith), and probably make criticisms from time to time.
I'll do my best to make those criticisms in a non-jerky way, though.
You're right, my fault. I should've silently edited out the offending part of your original comment and not engaged you. I won't make that mistake again.