Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

extensions w3c ehrm v3c

edited February 2007 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
its about time dudes

2-3 ppl hafta validate and test plugins before they get a publishing-ok-bbq stamp.

otherwise we get this sooner or later: vanilla is the sickest (coolest) forum with the almost bug-gay-est plugins world wide.

any thoughts?... nilla needs a consortium.


  • This is not an easy or quick process to get happening fery.
    You'll need guidelines, procedures, policies and a clear testing scope and sequence matrix.
    Not to mention clear and accurate record-keeping and accountability.
    Having said that, I agree with your premise.

    Posted: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 5:52PM (AEDT)

  • post in english and I might feel like reading your comments...
  • Quote: adrian.
    pic post in english and I might feel like reading your comments... pic
    Yes, I needed an aspirin after unscrambling the comment but I got the gist of it.

    Posted: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 6:19PM (AEDT)

  • edited February 2007
    ah apologies

    yeah guys you're right who cares vanilla let's talk about abc. brilliant :D

    other than that .. wanderer you're right, it's a bunch of work, no doubt ... but hey?

    ps @ adrian : the use of such abbreviations are allmost normal in the www , and by the way www is also such a wondrous abbreviation sparky.
    so you prefer oxford business english flavoured with honorific speech ? c'mon!
  • Quote: fery
    pic yeah guys you're right who cares vanilla let's talk about abc. brilliant :Dpic
    Mate, you are talking about setting up a consortium to promote quality and a high standard yet you throw together a few syllables with the hope that others put in the effort to decrypt your communication? That attitude comes across as half-baked, careless and not to be taken seriously.

    I suggest, if you wish to be taken seriously, you put a little more effort into communicating your (in my humble opinion, excellent) suggestion. Maybe then I'll award you my famous elephant stamp! pic

    Posted: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 6:51PM (AEDT)

  • i added my 2o cent as edit to my prev. post

    so back to topic.

    "tested extensions"... thats the whole message wanderer.
  • Programmers are just human. They make mistakes.

    Its one thing when your work is measured, analyzed and reviewed for your (hopefully well paying) job, and its another when it happens for something you do in your spare time whenever you can catch a spare hour. I'm all for constructive feedback, but pass/fail/try again fosters discouragment and raises the bar to beginners. (Joe Schmoe programmer says, 'Why bother? I've never done anything for this software before, It won't even make it through testing, and the testers will just laugh.')

    But I believe in quantity over quality, and let the end administrators rate, improve, adapt, provide feedback, make feature requests, and submit the improved add-ons that don't fit the bill. We don't want to impede this process at all.

    That being said, Mozilla has a review process for their partially-Vanilla-based add-ons:
    They also have a much broader user base and a much higher incentivised developer base.
  • You have a point WallPhone but I do think an extension should actually work before it's made officially available. Maybe there needs to be a testing or holding area where people know the extensions there are on probation and to be wary of problems? After a period of time when people are happy with their performance, extensions may be promoted to the official area.

    And mate, quality is always preferable to quantity, every time, no exception.

    Posted: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 9:01PM (AEDT)

  • Not for PC users... :D

    The thing is, any extension which is pre v1 should be understood by people to be a beta or even an alpha. Is that so hard?
  • **ignores cheeky PC users comment**
    Not hard, I understand it, but many sporting version 1.x stink, they don't work or conflict badly with others that do!
    Actually they should have a b in the version number if they are beta and not released generally at all if they are alpha!

    Posted: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 9:32PM (AEDT)

  • I agree.
This discussion has been closed.