Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits? (Read 3391 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

They've added quite a bit of their own code over the past few years, and I've noticed a few PRs that could potentially be relevant.

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #1 –

I'm subscribed to the repo, apart from Suki messages (that blocked me) I read them, but of course I may miss some and my opinion on the relevancy may differ from yours[1] so... feel free to share if you see something that would fit into Elk. ;D
1 Mainly because we likely have different priorities, that is a good thing to me. :D↵
Bugs creator.
Features destroyer.
Template killer.

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #2 –

When  I'm asked "does this apply to us" then I take a look. 

When we first branched ElkArte I would watch for common areas in the code , but so much has changed in the 3.5 years since we first began work on the codebase.  Heck its been 1 1/2 years since we shipped 1.0.0 !

Then there is the relevancy  ... things that may be important for them to fix, add, improve, change,  may not even be on my radar of things I want to do.   Different goals and directions, hence the fork to begin with,  but there are still some common lineage that we share.

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #3 –

I have a ~270 emails marked unread regarding 2.1 repo.
Most of them are likely not that much relevant, though there may be something interesting here and there.

Of the most recent (January to today) I kept to remember:
null in database 3241
 PHP7 session handling 3268 (I think there is still one case to fix)
group by SQL in display 3272
 explain analyze 3213
3218
 unnecessary index 3203
possible timeout in maintenance 3142
 order by null 3263
pg fixes 3207
 group by in PM 3210
admin search error 3276
 ifnull to coalesc 3277 + 3278
3282
 inet_aton stuff 3291
case insensitive index 3215
 duplicate constraint 3303 (even though I think it doesn't apply to 1.1)
fixes to news and xml 3310 + 3311
 3316
3330 (waiting to test it because I don't know how it looks like in Elk)
 HTML support in emails 3342
* 3347 (not sure where it happens so I want to check)

And just for fun, the oldest unread is 317. LOL
Bugs creator.
Features destroyer.
Template killer.

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #4 –

Sorry, can't help since you did not say "does this apply to us" :P

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #5 –

Well, I chose you because I figured you would be receptive to my e-mail plight. And you had a released product. >> After the collapse of 'project phoenix' I spent years building my own CMS/Framework deal. I actually have a very slick set of code for that.

My plan is to get my sites to Elkarte 1.1, then start refactoring.

I thought of this because there was a commit referencing cleaning up some CDATA mess in a file I worked on for moving things to custom fields. Before the two of us changed that file, they were effectively identical.

It may have been awhile, but both projects have moved a bit slower than everyone would have liked. <<

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #6 –

Quote from: Vekseid – I thought of this because there was a commit referencing cleaning up some CDATA mess in a file I worked on for moving things to custom fields. Before the two of us changed that file, they were effectively identical.
I remember that one, I think I was going to keep an eye on it, but I didn't...maybe just because I forgot to mark the email as read, or because it was that day the power was keeping going because of snow, I don't remember.
If you think it's worth, feel free to track down the issue at github. ;)
Bugs creator.
Features destroyer.
Template killer.

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #7 –

It's not a part of SMF I've really bothered with, normally, so I wasn't sure. It will be in the future, probably, but still.

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #8 –

* HTML support in emails 3342

This one at least is pretty straightforward. Also, with all of our other plans, would make Elkarte (and SMF if they take it) stand out for having proper mail support in forum software.

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #9 –

For the most part its simply setting the flag to also include html in the email. 

Re: Has there been any review of SMF 2.1 commits?

Reply #10 –

As I have tested SMF2.1B2, I only know that it has more hooks than SMF2.0 and Elk1.0 (they claimed them useful for easy customization), but I am just not so sure whether all these hooks are needed or suitable here.  :-\