HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
Delegating simple plugin updates for 2.5
It is obvious for anyone looking at the multiple discussions on "plugin not working in 2.5" that many of those could be made compatible with few small changes. It's also clear that while advise to complaining posters may cure one "patient" the "disease" replicates because the plugin in the repo is not fixed.
How about allowing an exception to the rule that only plugin developers can update their plugins and allow a subset of developers upgrade these plugins to 2.5 without having the original developers lose ownership?
1
Comments
Technically moderators are able to do so. But isn't that a question of what is permitted by the plugins license?
Not sure Vanilla staff don't have some authority through the agreement to post inthe repo, and if so, to delegate that authority... Possibly @Linc can reflect onthis discussion...
This is a repeat discussion that gets not traction user and staff complacency.
if the author gives an explicit ok for the silly simple changes that broke the plugin in the next vanilla version and made the plugin incompatible. it would benefit users, the author , and vanilla.
forgetting about license, I would guess if you ask an author explicit permission if they mind an update to make it compatible some authors wouldn't care.
here is one example of someone who might agree to it ..... https://open.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/251626/#Comment_251626
and there are probably others.
for silly simple changes probably a few add-on authors would be glad to have R_J change it if R_J was willing since R_J has the chops to make a valid change and the vanilla permissions.
saveToConfig to touchConfig
or
$Sender->StatusMessage to $Sender->informMessage
or
$Sender->addSideMenu to $Sender->setHighlightRoute
or any of the number of function naming decisions
or changing class naming convention adding plugin or adding a json.
Pragmatism is all I have to offer. Avoiding the sidelines and providing centerline pro-tips.
I'd like to see:
If a third-party addon needs updates, it's up to the original author. If it's important enough to fork and create a new version, the GPL-compatible licenses now required allow for that. I do not think it's appropriate to "take over" an existing listing.
well the users don't have permission to delete them. So it would require action by someone capable of doing it with the permissions to do so. otherwise this can be a recurring theme every six months until mars is colonized or extraterrestrial life is found.
You could delete probably 50% of all the addons (themes and plugins) that have not worked since 2.1 and provide no usable framework.
there are probably 3 or 4 authors are still updating plugins, (R_J, Bleistivt, and one or two others)
so that leaves the other 200 or so authors who no longer visit the forum that don't update.
https://open.vanillaforums.com/addons
probably nothing is that important, with the exception of the one person who deems it exceptionally important (although they neither have the time to "waste" or the time to learn to "modify" it because they usually don't know how to write code).
although simple updates could be made if the author agrees to let the moderator update while they are busy.
https://open.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/252575/#Comment_252575
Pragmatism is all I have to offer. Avoiding the sidelines and providing centerline pro-tips.
Here is the reality - it is not the developers who find an interest in a plugin, it is admins upgrading to 2.5 (mostly) and new admins who are considering adopting the platform and find some of their requirements fullfilled with some plugins only to discover that they don't work. That leads to disappointment in the entire platform - not just the plugin (regardless of the injustice of that), and thus the process contributes to the loss of potential new users.
I hope we won't prune all these plugins because they presumably addressed some requirments. Even the description of the requirement they address has value. In the realm where not all admins are developers less plugins means less functionality. Seems to me that with the licensing requirments that only the author can upgrade the plugin we (I mean Vanillusiasts;-) are in for a rough ride.
What I do not like:
There are several reasons why I consider changing the plugin of another person as a no-go. I even consider it a waste of time talking about that. Call it some freakish developer-codex...
Also, I didn't want to find several plugins that do exactly the same thing, but one is working with version X, the other is working with version Y, yet another for version Y.1 and so on. That would be a mess.
FancyPlugin 0.1 (working with Vanilla 2.0.18, created by original author)
FancyPlugin 2.1 (Vanilla 2.1 patched by RJ)
FancyPlugin 3.0 (Vanilla 2.5, miserable named by patch author John Doe)
FancyPlugin 2.5.1 (Vanilla 2.5.1 better named, but still somewhat unlucky by patcher WhoEver)
:shiver:
Or if I search for a functionality "stunning"
"StunningPlugin" by original author
"RJs StunningPlugin" by RJ
"FixedStunningPlugin" by rbrahmson
etc.
What a mess...
If replacing and adding more plugins to the repo are no alternatives, then I should come up with another proposal, right?
Whatever follows, it would require developer effort for the addon section and that's what obviously is not coming from the OS community. What a shame by the way: we have the opportunity to design our own community features and we do not care to do so.
What would be needed from my point of view would be a way to link to a fixed version in the addons page. How that link comes to there and where it should point to would have to be discussed.
One scenario:
Second scenario:
But as I've said before, that would require changing the Addons application and I don't see any volunteers here
I agree, and I don't know an ecosystem in the world that would allow such a thing. It's a straight-up deficient idea from the start.
If the author wants contributions and folks want to contribute fixes, that is what a pull request is for. If you're allergic to how collaborative coding has worked since 2009, I can't help you. The rest of the world is using it just fine.
Gentlemen, understand these arguments. Unless someone comes up with a solution we will have a much smaller library of (working) addons resulting with diminished functionality to existing and prospect forum admins.
I also sense that the commercial product has many more features (all plugins?) so that may not be an issue for the commercial side. I happen to believe that exposing the added functionality (even under stricter license) to the open side doesn't really compete with the commercial product (different demographics) and could potentially benefit the business (when a forum grows to size justifying VF hosting), but I'm afraid that my belief isn't shared by the V gods. If it were, the open forum version would have been much richer and more attractive, alleviating the issue of a diminished add on library.
Short of the above options I see a long tail decline in VF popularity which deeply saddens me.
The idea that the options on the table are "let people overwrite existing addons in the directory" or "watch Vanilla's popularity tailspin" is ridiculous. There is are multiple paths for updating existing addons, and the bottleneck is most certainly not software permissions.
I agree with you that we could safely open source more cloud addons, but when you talk about my coworkers that - operating in good faith and based on their own experiences - disagree with that position as "the V gods" it makes me wanna stop engaging you at all.
Oh,you have my sincere apologies - I didn't realize that the term V gods is offensive, it certainly was not my intention! I do not think they or you are not operating in good faith. In my mind "gods" meant those in control and in a positive way. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Uh, what's going on? Isn't the OS community already almost wiped out, especially the Addon DEVs in here (trying to target the anger of both parties towards me so the two important players can shake hands again
).
Thanks @Bleistivt for the amazing update series for your addons. It beautiful to see all this updates in the repository.
Hi @phreak, Nothing going on - at least not that I am aware of. I hope @linc accepted my apology.
I read with optimism Linc's comment "I agree with you that we could safely open source more cloud addons," as a very positive comment and hope that this will happen soon. I am not sure if/when we will hear more about it.
Yup, over it.
I've always taken that stance. For instance, I've been saying for quite a while we're going to rebuild Reactions as a core feature rather than a cloud addon, and I'm always a strong proponent of that internally. But that's a fairly big task, as are all other goals in this area. What you're not likely to see is us dumping existing cloud addons into the addon directory as-is.
I appreciate your feedback. To my unlearned mind it would seem that if there are no impediments to expose features then it would be simpler to include them in the core so that you won't have to maintain two variants - the public and internal one. That may be what you meant by "not in the addon directory", but the important thing in my mind is the availability of functionality rather than having it as addons. I can even see some advantages. For example, having Tagging incorporated in the core ensures that it is kept updated while as an addon it might have been seen as a lower priority (or lower popularity) item. I obviously speculate here as I have no idea how the VF team and business operates.
Looking forward to more functionality!
Tagging and Reactions are indeed very similar cases - we see them as base functionality for other addons to use, which is why we think they should be core. Tagging was simpler to move and being built on by more addons, which is why it went first. The same holds true for Profile Extender and Ranks. We'll get there.
I hope the same applies to groups (which way back was somewhat supported by a now defunct plugin)
This would empower the OS scene of Vanilla heavily and we would definitly build this - if core functionalities - into our Vanilla APP (iOS version out for a year now, Android release around the corner).
I‘d personally love to see more developing and up to date addons enriching the OS scene... leading to increasing fame and that way to more Vanilla hosted customers (Discourse seems to do a good job this way).