CMS Made Simple Forums

compufairy, how does singling out my post gain anything? And in what way did it make your "hair stand on end". I reiterate - I do not blame the hard-working dev team for the state of the Forge.

It is a beast that has simply grown WAAAYYYY out of control in the 7 years (count them!) that I have been using this CMS. In the early days I (v0.4-0.9) when I was using the CMS exclusively, I devoted wads of time to this project.

Neither am I am not bemoaning your efforts in this area. If there was something I could do to help - I most certainly would. I am not a Ruby programmer but I can try harrass my clients to cough up a donation.

Please try to understand that no one expects an overhaul of these issues overnight. We're just frustrated.

Perhaps while the larger project is being worked on, a few small changes could be made sooner, rather than later, that would alleviate some of the problems being faced.

• The CMSMS site could have an Add-ons page that lists ONLY those modules which are known to be version ready and reliable.
• The Forge could include a very clear notice about the state and support of many of the projects therein.
• Module Manager could reference a much smaller and dedicated list of these modules.

It's hard to tell a client that they can't install anything from the terrifically long list of modules currently available. But too many times it's broken a site and then I'm the one who has to fix it.

Peace.

The CMSMS site could have an Add-ons page that lists ONLY those modules which are known to be version ready and reliable.

Unrealistic... who's gonna do that testing?

The Forge could include a very clear notice about the state and support of many of the projects therein.

Forge project do state whether they are 'stale' or not when you visit the summary page for that project. Yes, it'd be nice if it had a last-file-release date when looking at the list.. but the summary page also says that too. We also went through and deleted a whole bunch of projects a few months ago that had no commits and/or releases in 2 years... we'll try to make this an annual process but it's a time intensive effort. However there are revisions to the forge in the works, as you've read.

Module Manager could reference a much smaller and dedicated list of these modules.

Why? Module Manager is a client to the forge, it lists the files that are available... and it should list all of the modules, and all of their versions. Not just the ones somebody thinks may work with the latest version of CMSMS. There are a considerable number of modules that have not had updates in a while... AND are still good.

Yeah, you're right on all counts Cal. I'm out of ideas.

Maybe getting more metadata into Forge projects would allow for some additional grouping and sorting for Module Manager. Present modules by version support, stability and rating. I'd love to see - and would be happy to test/assist - with getting a user rating system integrated.

All I know is that I have clients who love to install every module under the sun and then complain their site's broken. Funny that.

...I never should've given them admin rights. My bad.

I have a module rating system. It is based upon modules being prepared for CMSMS. Plugins are not supported yet.
I am not allowed to use this module, but with the current flow of ideas I don't have a problem if this module of mine would be integrated one way or the other in the forge.

Duketown

calguy1000 wrote:

The CMSMS site could have an Add-ons page that lists ONLY those modules which are known to be version ready and reliable.

Unrealistic... who's gonna do that testing?

The programm authors ... like on other CMS the authors have to add "ready for 1.x".

By the way - some authors have already done this with function MaximumCMSVersion().

I applaud all the devs out there that contribute to a project like this. Making something open source and free is not by any means an easy task and these people GIVE a lot of their own time to these projects. If they got paid for doing this, that would be a bit different cause then you could put a bit more accountability on them, but they dont.

With me, if something doesn't work, I try to patch it myself or find another workaround that gets me the functionality that I need. Also, I don't upgrade unless there is a major reason for me to do so. If everything works for me, what's the point. I do not service a lot of sites like some of you, but you have to ask people, "Does it do everything that you need?". If it does, then don't mess with it. If you do have to upgrade, ESPECIALLY to a major release, always plan for and expect the worst. Plan and be ready with contingencies if things don't work.

I have programmed a large modular web application for managing asset inventory, work orders, software licensing and a few other features that we use at our local school district, and I know how hard it can be. I am in the process of a major rewrite on it, and making one little change in a core area can break a lot of things. I know the time that it takes to make a project like this work, so again, I applaud the devs and ask the people complaining, cut these guys some slack.

dbemowsk I don't think anyone here is complaining, it is just matter of trying to make suggestions to make what is the best CMS even better. No one is knocking the dev's at all and have great appreciation of the time and effort given.

The reason for updating is as the dev's specifically state is for security reasons and that fact that older versions are not supported. It is also for additional functionality.

Duketown re module rating system, seems like a good idea.

iNSiPiD Re: ...I never should've given them admin rights. Quite, I never give my clients access to install modules or plugins themselves. CMSMS is not for someone who has little or no technical knowledge in terms of setting it up. If I did give any clients such admin rights then I would tell them it is entirely their responsibility and if they break it then they pay to have to fixed.