slashcode-general

[Slashcode-general] What version?

[Matt M. <ma...@bo...>]

So, what version of Slash do you guys recommend running?  More 
interested in stability than bleeding-edge features.

I'd go with R_2_3_0_62, but looking back through the archive that's got 
problems with adding sections.

Am currently running T_2_3_0_75, but it's displaying a few odd little 
quirks -- in particular, most of the links in to admin.pl for site 
configuration (e.g., admin.pl?op=vars) are missing, and the guys I'm 
setting this up for can't easily cope without those.

Thanks.

Matt

Re: [Slashcode-general] What version?

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

On Friday 28 February 2003 23:02, Matt McLeod wrote:
> So, what version of Slash do you guys recommend running?  More
> interested in stability than bleeding-edge features.
>
> I'd go with R_2_3_0_62, but looking back through the archive that's got
> problems with adding sections.
>
> Am currently running T_2_3_0_75, but it's displaying a few odd little
> quirks -- in particular, most of the links in to admin.pl for site
> configuration (e.g., admin.pl?op=vars) are missing, and the guys I'm
> setting this up for can't easily cope without those.

Before this week, I would have said stick with the rtag.

For the past few years, I was always running only the last released version. 
Sometimes that became highly modified over time from what it originally was, 
but that was my own doing. 

Up until late January I'd been running fry. Then I switched to the latest 
rtag. That took a lot of work. Honestly it took about a months worth of 
working with it to upgrade 4 sites, 8 or 9 plugins, and 4 themes.

However, on irc this week, some of the OSDN guys were saying that the current 
CVS was pretty good, and fairly bug/problem free.

So I grabbed it, and took a look at the upgrade file in it.

The changes in the upgrade file, from the rtag, are really very minimal. It 
took me about 5 minutes to move 4 sites from rtag to current CVS.

And a number of things, which I'd been posting problems about, seem to be 
fixed. 

The *ONLY* thing I would REALLY CAUTION you about, when upgrading from the 
rtag to current cvs, is if you have lots of template customizations. The 
templates in the current CVS have really changed. And the tabbed menus have 
changed.There's some sort of new templates that generate tables. At first 
this may seem bad, but if you think about it, if you were wanting to get rid 
of tables and move to DIV's through CSS, this may be a far easier way to do 
it, just edit the templates that makes table structure.

And if your site uses it's own themes, beware the added templates that were 
put into the standard slashcode theme. You'll need to add them to your own 
themes.

So if you have lots of customizations for cosmetics, I would be careful when 
considering the move. If you don't, I'd move to current CVS in a heartbeat.

As for the admin menus, try this applying this to your db:

update menus set menu='config' where label='Blocks';

Good luck!
 Shane

Re: [Slashcode-general] What version?

[Matt M. <ma...@bo...>]

On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 11:23 PM, shane wrote:
> On Friday 28 February 2003 23:02, Matt McLeod wrote:
>> So, what version of Slash do you guys recommend running?  More
>> interested in stability than bleeding-edge features.
[snip]
> So if you have lots of customizations for cosmetics, I would be 
> careful when
> considering the move. If you don't, I'd move to current CVS in a 
> heartbeat.

Thanks for the advice.  At the moment we're moving from Squishdot to 
Slash, so whatever version we go with will require a fair bit of 
customization.  I just want to get the choice of version right sooner 
rather than later to avoid running into too much trouble.

> As for the admin menus, try this applying this to your db:
>
> update menus set menu='config' where label='Blocks';

Thansk!  That did the trick.

Assuming the other problem I'm having (trying to get it to play nice 
with a non-standard port) isn't related to the version we're running 
right now (T_2_3_0_75) I'll probably stick with that -- it's fairly 
recent, and seems to be OK so far.

Matt