Joomla! bug Squad Google Group

Re: Mootools 1.2

arno.alva...@gmail.com (Arno Zijlstra) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:25:09 UT

There is a lot of talk about the end-user in this whole debate, Ron
even calls in a usability issue.

I think this is related to the mindset Joomla! has always had and that
is make everything simple for the end-user and that's a great way todo
thing as long as it doesn't mix or interfere with developer power. In

Re: Mootools 1.2

mambob...@gmail.com (Andrew Eddie) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:51:00 UT

2009/11/24 Joseph LeBlanc <cont...@jlleblanc.com>:

Joe that's my opinion as well. We did this a couple of times back in
the Mambo days and it didn't do anything for our credibility. At the
end of the day, it is "just a number" but there is a lot of content
already published for and about the "version 1.6" on j.org resources

Re: Mootools 1.2

amystep...@gmail.com (amyStephen) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:58:35 UT

Ron -

Just realized - your suggestion on version changes should probably be
raised in the 1.6 CMS list. This discussion is beyond 1.5, now, and
the Bug Squad list isn't followed by all who are trying to stay up-to-
date with 1.6 issues.

I hear Joe's point on the concern with losing focus on 1.6. Perhaps we

Re: Mootools 1.2

amystep...@gmail.com (Amy Stephen) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:58:33 UT

Exactly, Andrea.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Andrea Tarr at Tarr Consulting <

Re: Mootools 1.2

amystep...@gmail.com (Amy Stephen) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:57:52 UT

This is my fear. Please, no, let's not do this.

In addition to Joe's point, changing version numbers like this will likely
have a negative marketing impact to professionals with more than a cursory
view of the project. It signals a lack of roadmap and it looks like a
knee-jerk reaction to an EOL library we probably should have upgraded some

RE: Mootools 1.2

at...@tarrconsulting.com (Andrea Tarr at Tarr Consulting) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:33:55 UT

Not to add more confusion to this discussion, but we might want to decide
how we want to handle this problem in the future as well. If Mootools is
coming out with 2.0 in 2010 as it says on their site, then we'll be dealing
with this again shortly.

Andy

Andrea Tarr

Tarr Consulting

Re: Mootools 1.2

cont...@jlleblanc.com (Joseph LeBlanc) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:25:06 UT

I think that adding a fourth digit for that specific purpose would start to get way outside the norm when compared to other projects.

A friend of mine who heads up web2project was surprised that we're calling it Joomla 1.6, considering that we're dropping PHP 4 support. His point is that major.minor.patch usually means the following:

Re: Mootools 1.2

schalk.verst...@gmail.com (Schalk Versteeg) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:34:15 UT

Very good suggestion Ron, just hope that the decision makers also think the
same.
In the same vain the release numbering could be changed from 1.6.0 to
1.6.0.0 where the last digit is used the same as current but the third digit
(Added digit) can be used for smaller but possible breaking changes of third

Re: Mootools 1.2

ron.sever...@joomla.org (Ron Severdia) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:46:28 UT

A differentiating factor for Joomla when compared to other CMSs out
there is usability and ease of use. While a switcher of some kind to
allow site admins to choose which version of Mootools they want active
(probably four switches for both front-end and back-end), it will add
another layer of technical complexity. The development team should be

Re: Mootools 1.2

amystep...@gmail.com (Amy Stephen) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:59:30 UT

JM -

What Aaron was talking about is a script they are improving to help
developers identify and replace methods and properties used in 1.1 that must
be changed in 1.2. It throws out console warnings identifying changes
needed. So, it will be very helpful for upgrading, but not quite as magical

Re: Mootools 1.2

amystep...@gmail.com (Amy Stephen) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:56:08 UT

Elin -

Actually, that's not what Mark and I were discussing. Earlier, the project
indicated that 1.6 would be a stepping stone on the way to 2.0, and 1.7,
1.8, 1.9, were to be short 3-month projects rapidly executed to address
smaller problems.

It was said that most users would be encouraged to stay at 1.5, as it would

Re: Mootools 1.2

amystep...@gmail.com (Amy Stephen) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:08:00 UT

Definitely, don't get distracted on this. Joomla! 1.6, full speed ahead!
W00t!

Thanks, Andrew!

Re: Mootools 1.2

amystep...@gmail.com (Amy Stephen) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:07:11 UT

I will ask Aaron for more information on that, JM.

One thing that Mark pointed out was that there is no reason that an
Unofficial Joomla! 1.5 Distribution can't also be used to address the MT 1.2
issue. That's something worth considering and we are discussing a very
focused distribution that would offer the choice and help developers upgrade

Re: errors on newest Wamp

klas.ber...@gmail.com (klas berlič) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:30:54 UT

I tried newest XAMP that is also on php5.3. and Joomla was running fine, but
Eclipse with Xdebug wasn't (all variables were empty when debugging). Has
anyone had more luck with it?

2009/11/17 Flavia Silveira - Flah Design <fayec.web.des...@gmail.com>

--
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------

Re: errors on newest Wamp

fayec.web.des...@gmail.com (Flavia Silveira - Flah Design) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:28:29 UT

Hi Airton,

Ok....I haven't been reading the tracker or the boards lately...that's
why I wasn't aware of the incompatibilities.
I will try 1.5.15 today :)

Obrigada :)

Flavia