To all Module and Plugin Devs

[applejack]

It would be really useful as there have been major changes in v10.1 if all modules could be marked as 10.1 ready. I have just been trying to upgrade a site but failing after 5 attempts as it seems some modules are not compatible. They only way I can test this is to do a fresh install of v10.1 and then try and install each module to see if they are compatible and even then that doesn't guarantee that I can then upgrade the site by removing non compatible modules. This would save everyone a lot of time.

[uniqu3]

applejack

We had discussions like this already and unfortunately DEV team can not spend time and effort to check every single module in forge for it's compatibility.
Modules are third party, i think it is reasonable that DEV Team can't guarantee for third party functionality.

Every Module developer can add text like "1.10 Ready" in the module summary but still, this would also mean that actively maintained modules would be marked like that and you would still have a high number of modules that wouldn't say anything.

To make the story short, if module is actively maintained it will be updated soon.

[Wishbone]

He was referring to the module devs, not the core devs. I've tested my one module, and it seems to work, so I'll mark it.

[applejack]

Thanks Wayne, yes I was referring to module devs not core as it is not the core dev's responsibility. I just thought it could save people a lot of time and effort.

[uniqu3]

Ok

Some of Module Devs did already either add "Works with 1.10" in their release notes or in Summary description.
Your idea is nice but as mentioned there will still be a number of modules that are simply not actively developed, developer doesn't read forums or developer forgets about mentioning it

[applejack]

Is there not a database of email addresses of all module developers to which the core dev's could send a message asking them to do this. Of course some wouldn't anyhow and other modules are stale. As 1.10 is a major upgrade which can potentially effect numerous modules then to be able to flag up whether a module is compatible would be a great help. At the end of the day any system is only as good as it's weakest parts and if half the modules do not work then it will not do CMSms any favours.

[calguy1000]

Even if there were a list of email addresses we could blast to (I'm certain we could get something that was at least 'somewhat' accurate). As you said, there is no way that it could be reliable.

Keep in mind that for MONTHS we announced on the forum that CMSMS was breaking compatibility, and encouraged developers to get on-board... and we kept nagging in twitter, and on the forum during our 2 month beta cycle...

Also, 'works' is a relative term. If a developer goes in and spends 20 minutes fixing obvious issues with a module, and then sees no further problems he may state that it is 'CMSMS 1.10 Compatible' when he releases that version... but then somebody (such as you or somebody else) will yell just as loudly when then run into a problem with an option, or configuration or obscure host or (there are a thousand variables with each and every module) that was not tested... then he will yell that 'I thought that this module was 1.10 compatible, well I'm using 1.10 but it doesn't work!!!' ...

Of course that user won't provide any details, reports from error log, steps to reproduce the problem etc... so the developer bothers to read the report, and spends 5 minutes on the problem to try to reproduce it... and has no issues, the cycle continues.

In the end... it's an imperfect system, and no matter how much effort we put into 'making it better', it can never get any better than the people writing and using the software. And we're already on the 'diminishing returns' end of the 'improving stuff' cycle.

[applejack]

Calguy I quite agree and appreciate the myriad of complications involved.

It was just an idea which I thought could help and thanks for the additional info.

[iNSiPiD]

Calguy1000, no one is in dispute as to the sheer amount if eork the core devs already have on their plates. The problem lies with the Forge and always has.

While it remains a great resource for developers, it can quickly spell site death for the unwary site admin. Given that Module amanager uses this resource its hard to name the end user for installing or upgrading a module. There is an assumed trust level.

I feel there is a definite need for a way to label modules against versions with a trust level. If the current Forge can't hack it, then maybe a second-level repo is required?

A place where active developers can publish their release code against a specific CMS version. A Rating system? A genuine activity meter? Some kind of tick of approval?

I have clients who continue to ask me what modules they CAN install. My answer: none. Not until there's a way to rollback.

Just my 2c after recent upgrade pains Big hugs and love to the DEV team!!

[applejack]

It would also be useful to be able to receive email notifications for when modules are updated or new ones added. I know you can see updates via the Module Manager but if you are in charge of quite a few sites then this would be useful even more so if there was a summary about the update etc.

[M@rtijn]

I see a lot of people who have ideas about how the Module Forge should/could be improved.

Lately we have also seen this topic: http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/viewtopi ... =2&t=57860

Just a question: How many people who have great ideas have the time to actually do something about it, I mean, who volunteers to start this 'Forge-overhaul'?

[uniqu3]

It would also be useful to be able to receive email notifications for when modules are updated or new ones added. I know you can see updates via the Module Manager but if you are in charge of quite a few sites then this would be useful even more so if there was a summary about the update etc.

There is http://dev.cmsmadesimple.org/project/latest_files with RSS icon, subscribe to RSS and you will be up to date.
At least that is how i follow releases.

[iNSiPiD]

Martin, you're missing the point here.

The CMSMS homepage makes bold claims with regards to modules and their extensibility. At the end of the day, there's still no Calender module that reliably manages recurring events and supports an open standard for import/export.

I don't even want o get into the Shop/Cart/Payment solutions, the lack of support for the major Social Networks (i.e News articles and Facebook). I'm not here to dis the hard working DEV team.

I'm just saying that there needs to be a clear(er) distinction between a full-trust core module that can and should be reliably upgradeable vs a one-hit wonder that's never even been code reviewed. It's just plain dangerous.

As much as I hate to say it, there's probably a lot to be said for the Codeplex platform in this regard.

Either way, there HAS to be dome way to limit available modile upgrades and installs to those that have been released for the user's currently installed version.

[applejack]

Thanks uniqu3

[compufairy]

Guys, I wrote a response to the Forge "issues"

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/viewtopi ... 58#p266358

Enjoy the reading.