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 These earlier versions are no longer being updated and have security issues.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.
Will there be a 2.2 compatible version of YAGA?
RodSloan
New
We'd really like to use YAGA, but we also need to update to 2.2. Is there any chance of a new version of YAGA in 2016?
Tagged:
0
Comments
Yes.
The development version is already 2.2 compatible. I want to get some testing done before release.
Search first
Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.
Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.
That's great news, thanks!
Trying to catch up on this.
I have 1.0.3 on 2.2, and obviously got a few issues - do you want them as github issues, or in here?
and is there anything I can do to help testing or other stuff?
More testing on the develop version on GitHub would be awesome.
Search first
Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.
Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.
@hgtonight can i get link for Compatible Version (github) ?
@Owner, I am of the opinion if you cannot find the development version you probably shouldn't be using it.
hint: figure out where the development of this addon takes place and read.
Search first
Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.
Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.
you said: @Owner, I am of the opinion if you cannot find the development version you probably shouldn't be using it.
Owner might be aware github versions are here, but might not.
straightfoward answer: https://github.com/hgtonight/Application-Yaga
but it still doesn't make it easy for users when the add-on says it requires vanilla 2.1.
but vanilla 2.1 is not recommended
so if the non development version in the add-ons is not compatible with the current 2.2, wouldn't it make sense to put a version that works better in the add-ons, instead of making people guess which is the most appropriate version for the current version of vanilla.
The best most recent update of software that works for the current version of vanilla software would be an advantage to new users, despite the unpopularity of this approach by a variety of developers.
I don't use this plugin, just thought the idea warrants an open-minded discussion.
if an add-on is to be shared with the community, wouldn't you want to make it easy to get to (in the add-ons section). New users might have problems finding it.
Or I could be totally off-base and you don't want new unexperienced users (as you imply with you said: @Owner, I am of the opinion if you cannot find the development version you probably shouldn't be using it.) from using it in vanilla 2.2
you said: if an add-on is to be shared with the community, wouldn't you want to make it easy to get to (in the add-ons section). New users might have problems finding it.
hgtonight said: The development version is already 2.2 compatible. I want to get some testing done before release.
I think: those who do not read the read me, should not use development versions.
I guess: that's what hgtonight thought when hgtonight said: I am of the opinion if you cannot find the development version you probably shouldn't be using it.
Thanks for working on the 2.2 version, @hgtonight. Eagerly awaiting its release.
you said: I think: those who do not read the read me, should not use development versions.
ok - you seem to be the mouthpiece here in this argument.
I don't disagree with the basic concept of reading. I disagree with your assessment and the difficulty of accessing
add-ons. My point was easy access could be made in the add-ons section, not the excuse I was already aware of. I can read and guess as well as the next person. The attempt to improve the add-on is lauded, the accessibility to testing and the obfuscation is the issue.
Those who do not attempt to read the read me and understand it, might be advised to not use any version of software regardless of stage of development. If after reading the readme and they still do not understand they should have their questions answered in a way that they might understand in as simple a way as possible, with the least amount of trouble to them or insinuation that reading the read me qualifies you to go to github and retrieve the add-on for testing.
Maybe we can get into a reasoned discussion about add-ons in general, before the dirt starts flying and the cliques start forming and the covered wagons start to circle and the war clouds develop.
on to the crux of the problem with NECRO-ONS
There seems to be a large discrepancy between "developed", "broken", "working", and "released" versions. A ballpark guess that 50% of Released versions (those in the add-ons) of add-ons do not work with the vanilla 2.2 and have been been broken for a long time. This is bad ju-ju. These 50% more or less of the broken add-ons could be termed as Necro-Ons. The necromancer will never bring them back to life, they have been broken for a long, long time, therefore a proper burial would be well-deserved. They served their purpose once, they no longer serve there purpose and provide "incorrect ways" of working with the current version of vanilla and hamper the attempts of new users having a pleasnat experience with vanilla. Either bury the necro-ons or cremate them. In any event get the necro-ons out of sight.
ok - we've got that out of the way - logic suggests that the readme is to be read.
follow these points.
A released add-on (any released add-on) is submitted to the add-ons (it may or may not have bugs when released). Now, it does not work with the current version of vanilla. The previous version of vanilla is insecure. The add-on is broken and incompatible with the current version of vanilla.
users who download versions of the "broken" , "old" , "not working" , not updated" add-on will have a problem with the add-on or who had retrieved the add-on prior to current version of vanilla.
why? - because it does not work with the current version of vanilla.
A developer fixes this add-on (it may have a few bugs) and "releases" the development version on github.
Now we have two versions of the add-on
one "broken" "incompatible" version in the add-ons that will not work with the current version of vanilla.
one "working" "developed" "alpha, beta, gamma" version. This version on github has a much better chance of working with the current version of vanilla. It is newer and has the bugs fixed. Presumably the developer is not making things worse by introducing more bugs. It needs testing.
In my logical universe, every piece of software has bugs that will be found out sooner or later.
My question which remains unanswered. Why would you want to make it harder for new users to find the "better" version of add-on, that has the most likelihood of working with the current version of vanilla?
immutable point - The easiest place to find the add-on software is if it is located in the add-ons section (not somewhere else).
I wonder if developers are protecting themselves from user public questions on the forum by putting something on github instead of releasing the "better add-on" in the add-ons. The release of a better improved add-on to replace a broken add-on does not preclude the possibility of adding even a newer version.
A person who does not read the readme, has an equal likelihood of downloading the broken plugin in the add-ons as they do of not finding the plugin on github. The only difference is they might have a fighting chance of using the plugin.
On the other hand if the plugin is so broken in github that it should not be released, that may be the best place for it to be.
Hiding behind github through obfuscation makes it difficult for new users.The logic of having a working version of an add-on github, and a broken version of the add-on residing in the add-ons, a total anathema to "user friendliness" and a pox. Although, having an option of a working version of the add-on in github is preferable to having an add-on that is broken, will remain broken, and has no chance of life. Do x except when y or when z occurs or upon a blue moon.
As a whole, Many new users will be turned away by the difficulty of determining what is broken and what is a booby trap or a land mine in the world of add-ons. If the goal is to give new users a "happy" experience. Give them a choice of working add-ons, not a morass of broken and not-broken add-ons. For the love of logic, give the new users a fighting chance, instead of wasting thwir time with broken add-ons.
A broken add-on in the add-ons section does not serve new users well and makes the forum software less appealing when 50% of the community created software is not compatible. The broken software in 99% of the cases will not rise up again from the dead and is just a cesspool of incompatible software. Once again quantity, does not trump quality.
If anything is to be obfuscated. Obfuscate the broken software in the add-ons by making it difficult to find, don't obfuscate the better software by placing it on github but not in the add-ons.
The ultimate question - Is the commununity forum (add-on section included) supposed to make it easy and user-friendly for new users to use the current vanilla software and the add-ons. If so, there needs to be a open-eyed look at the problems. One of them is the difficulty of finding a working add-on.
I know many of you are part of a clique and have an ingrained objection to anything different than your norm and want to protect the colony, even if it is illogical on your part. Be it in London or the jungles of Borneo. I just ask you to give this the respect it deserves, before defending the status quo and "this is the way we have been doing things, so it must be right". OK, vanilla cloud is at odds with vanilla open-source with regards to potential income, add-ons, support, new releases, but there is no reason why the community can't be better in terms of community add-ons and there is no reason why new users must suffer through the trials and tribulations of broken add-ons. Get rid of the necro-ons and the new users to the community will have an easier time. Making it easier for new users will not harm the cloud, since the majority of new users can't afford the cloud and are just doing it for a part-time hobby.
Back to testing. The argument if you have an incompatible add-on in the add-ons, and a "better" add-on in github, it would behoove you to give users easier access to test by replacing the broken add-on in the add-ons section with a somewhat working one. The more testers testing the more tests will be made. Since the add-on in the add-ons is "incompatible", a compatible add-on is preferable whether it needs testing or not. If the goal is to have it tested. And if the goal is to have it easily accessible with the least amount of trouble.
The dual impact of Necro-Ons that will never be fixed and the github "curtain of attainment" to enlightenment are a troublesome battlefield for new users to navigate.
@nonce I am not trying to be clique-y. I welcome change.
If you truly want to fix this issue, we need to have community voting on the compatibility of addons vs Vanilla versions. I have started writing a voting module, twice actually. I was unable to finish it before a large refactoring, but I would love more input on the model and code: https://github.com/vanilla/community/pull/34
I am not trying to obfuscate anything in regards to Yaga. I am merely trying to manage expectations. The development version is not stable. I repeat, it is not stable. That said, you can do whatever you want with the software pursuant to the GPLv2.
You could even upload a fork here. Go ahead, I promise I don't mind as long as you follow the license.
I simply cannot work on Yaga as my full time job.
This doesn't excuse the fact 1.0.3 is incompatible with Vanilla 2.2. Please mark it as broken when the voting module is finished.
Search first
Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.
Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.
you said: I am not trying to be clique-y. I welcome change.
fair enough. in addition to my above comment and understanding your reasoning for your specific add-on.
Regarding OTHER add-ons in general. change can be done in baby steps. it doesn't require a bulldozer. there are clearly knowledgeable people on the forum who know whether something is broken. Have you yourself not tried an add-on that was broken and remains broken and everyone else knows it is broken. AND there is no fix in sight and no patch AND it can't be used. It should also be considered broken if the version in the add-ons has been broken for over a year, yet there is a newer github version. Having a delinquent add-on in the add-ons section for years is not improved by having a working version add-on in github or somewhere else because the author neglects to update the add-ons.
If it is truly broken and there is no patch it should be removed or very hard to get to (similar to github obfuscation).
Does that require software to have a democratic vote through a software voting mechanism. NO. broken is broken not a really minor flaw. I suggest an add-on is broken when it can't be enabled, it causes a blank screen, it causes problems with the normal operation of vanilla, or clearly doesn't do what its main purpose is. When no one will use the add-on as is, because it it broken. Not because someone wants it to do something it wasn't intended to do.
How many votes constitute a broken add-on.
Having a mine field of broken plugins that will never be fixed with a vote on it won't solve the problem or providing an easy to use add-on section for new users. if something is voted on today and is broken tomorrow, how can an automated vote help. Cremate the NECRO-ONS, and let them move on to the next world instead of letting them continue to haunt new users.
why do you need a vote on a Necro-on - if it is clear from the last X comments that it is broken and it hasn't been updated, and probably never be fixed. Several comments by several different users over a period of 1 year or more for a specific add-on should be reason enough. isn't that a VOTE.
voting doesn't fix a broken add-on. Common Sense should prevail. it should be obvious to anyone responsible for the add-ons that an add-on is broken and is not going to be maintained. It is then a NECRO_ON. Necro-ons need help to move on to the next world by somone capable of removing the Necro-on. Clearly no community volunteer has that ability.
Better to say "We the people managing the add-ons capable of removing the add-on" are going to remove this add-on within 30 days (theme, application, plugin), it appears it doesn't work as evidenced by the last x comments. If the author can put up a defense on why it does really work and everyone else is wrong, someone with a bit of programming skills should be able to separate the malarky.
Once again, having NECRO-ONs (broken add-ons) in the add-ons section does not need a software voting mechanism. It should be obvious to any person who is awake.
Certainly there will always be people who will have problems with every add-on whether it works or not, but those people should easily be discerned, and their "comment vote" should be discounted.
It isn't a question of removing addons, or even marking them as broken. It is having a system in place to do it.
We, the community, went through the entire list of addons when 2.1 came out. We had a good showing of effort and go through the entire list. We didn't have the tools then to mark an addon as broken, and we still don't.
This is why a voting module is necessary. We need to quantify user feedback so we can automate the management.
We need tools so we can take action. Only we are going to make these tools.
Search first
Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.
Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.
you said: It isn't a question of removing addons, or even marking them as broken
oh but it is. if the broken ones are removed there is no question. there is an existing a tool- it is called a comment and this is a forum to make comments. Comments allow reasons something doesn't work and gives identity to the commenter. It is not a popularity contest or a poll or a vote. Is it broken, is it old and never fixed? simple enough and well known already.
I was thinking of saying I would agree with you, but then we might both be wrong. But I think you are not OPEN-minded and feel that the only way out of the dilemma is through a software tool. Sometimes common sense and logic work as well.
You want a tool. I offer a solution without a tool.
Since the tool may never be created, and it also may never solve the ultimate problem, I don't see the need for a tool. The tool has not been created yet, and your voting tool wouldn't help, it would just obfuscate the issue and make it a voting game.
A broken add-on doesn't need a vote, it needs to pass on to the graveyard. You know the broken ones I bet.
Delete the necro-ons - you know what is broken. you don't need a 100-10 vote.
1000 broken plugins or any number of broken plugins with many downvotes will not solve the issue of the minefield of broken plugins for new users. Only NECRO-ON removal or movement to the graveyard and burial or cremation would help new users.
Nonce, can you start a new thread to wage this "Necro-On" war?
you said: can you start a new thread to wage this "Necro-On" war?
All good and well. But this whole discussion started as a result of a new user trying to find out where to find the compatible version of this specific addon. Although seemingly unrelated, it is keenly related. The context would be lost in a new discussion and it is all inter related. Ease of use for new users and Vanilla add-on incompatibility and ease of finding a working add-on and not finding a broken add-on and not having to search through a discussion or a read me to determine compatibility. If something is not compatible, and it is not being worked on, and it is broken - it should be necroed. If an add-on is not compatible with vanilla, it has no use in the add-ons. It may be nostalgic to include Necro-ons, but it does not provide help to new users by being in the add-ons... All a necro-on provides is a deterrent to continued use of vanilla, because it provides a minefield of problems, that are not apparent to a new unsuspecting user.
I've made my point. If the community is open to new ideas they will act on it and not use the excuse a tool has not been invented yet, we need your help to create a tool.
you may feel this is not a problem for you, because you spent hours and hours trying to get a broken plugin to work or wondered why your forum was broken, and now you know better. but to a new user it is still a big bad Bugaboo.
thank you for the help guys
I always felt that the plugin "app store" in here could use some improvements, voting being one of the features. Perhaps it will require additional fields in Plugininfo...
I wouldn't call it an "app store" it does not sell anything. Unless you mean "store" as in to "cache", but the cache has spoiled.
If it were a store - it would sell things or allow things to be sold. AFAIK this is not the case. Would it be better to be a store, that would be a topic for discussion.
In simple terms regarding the large number of broken add-ons. a farmyard story might help.
Three cows go to the feed store.
there are 10 types of cow food. Three types of cow food have spoiled and are beyond the expiration date. Two types of cow food are inedible. Four types of cow food are poisonous and will harm the cows.
Would the 3 cows (and a baby calf who doesn't know better) prefer:
A vote to determine which feed will kill them or harm them OR The removal of the inedible, spoiled, and poisonous food. I suspect the cows would prefer to have a harm-free choice instead of guessing if the votes are accurate,
But that would be cow logic not human voting.
When you go to the doctor and have a broken leg, do you want amateurs and quacks having a vote if the leg is broken?
In other words if a Necro-on is broken, would you prefer it removed form your list of choices by a knowledgeable person, or would you prefer to have a bunch of amateurs guess whether it will do you harm.
Some of you may prefer to inflict self-harm. Society might be better off as whole if the ability to inflict self-harm is reduced, as there will always be a percentage of the population that prefer self-harm.
with regards to "Will there be a 2.2 compatible version of YAGA?" yes. the description suggests use the version 1.1 in the add-ons section.
All I wanted in this sunny Friday morning was to offer a small opinion about the place where plugins are uploaded and downloaded. There was a purposeful intent on my part in putting "app store" in quotes -- to denote that the plugins are neither apps nor is that place a store. I did not opine on the quality measures, controls and procedures of what goes in there.
Am I sorry I got into this... But it is my fault -- the place to discuss the merits or lack thereof of an improved "place to keep plugins" should be in a different discussion.