The next release (0.9.5?)

Hurray !!!

Would that mean 0.9.5 is the last big release of the 0.9.x branch ?

hmmmm .....

Does the weather ever get cold in Dallas?

;)

LOL... good point Carsten. That means hopefully September.

@davidm
Barring security or bug fix releases, I’d say so.

Man, I am SO excited... given what’s already possible with the current build, and what I am discovering each day of the new parser... plus Jason’s updates on the 1.0 branch... I think this will be an even greater adventure with the new branch. This is so going to rock the competition !

what about the combined user types? (it’s light grey on your list I know) By combined user types you mean fusing of the manager and webuser tables into one user table right? This seems easy to manage and would make it somewhat easier to write code for modx which makes use of the user information (imho).

example of the confusing i’m dealing with is how to distinquish between webuser and manager user user when a document is posted (if you could do it in manager AND/ OR through a snippet on the frontend). Solving this problem by synching the two tables is just unnecessary imo.

If i’ve missed another solution for the current modx user management without the use of sync you can slap me and I will deny I ever posted this

If someone can manage to get this working reliably, that’d be awesome. I’d prefer it be that way, honestly. However, I don’t think it’s worth delaying 0.9.5 more.

Quote from: bS at Jul 24, 2006, 09:46 AM

what about the combined user types? (it’s light grey on your list I know) By combined user types you mean fusing of the manager and webuser tables into one user table right? This seems easy to manage and would make it somewhat easier to write code for modx which makes use of the user information (imho).

example of the confusing i’m dealing with is how to distinquish between webuser and manager user user when a document is posted (if you could do it in manager AND/ OR through a snippet on the frontend). Solving this problem by synching the two tables is just unnecessary imo.

If i’ve missed another solution for the current modx user management without the use of sync you can slap me and I will deny I ever posted this

I have a plan to get us to a single combined user structure in 1.0, and I am working on it as we speak, but it will take baby steps to get there. Currently, I am planning to let a new OO API for the 0.9.5 code be able to load the appropriate user class from related entities based on the current scheme of storage (i.e. webusers have negative id’s in tables that accept user or webuser relationships). So no actual aggregation of users and webusers would occur in the backend, until the migration to 1.0, at which point users will become one class of entity with one table as they should be. This will allow the legacy 0.9.5 user-related code to continue to work as is while providing an alternate API for managing them as a single class of entity where appropriate.

Now that the SVN trunk is officially available to the public, does this mean that everyone will get the pre-release test version of 0.9.5 at the same time?

It looks to me that some things that have been crossed off the top list (eg Wayfinder) haven’t actually made it into the public SVN yet. Does this mean that there’s a bunch of stuff that you have "in development" that isn’t in the SVN? What determines whether a change is committed or not? Is it when you are 100% happy with it, or is it when one of your colleagues needs to build on it?

Quote from: PaulGregory at Jul 25, 2006, 12:26 PM

Now that the SVN trunk is officially available to the public, does this mean that everyone will get the pre-release test version of 0.9.5 at the same time?

It looks to me that some things that have been crossed off the top list (eg Wayfinder) haven’t actually made it into the public SVN yet. Does this mean that there’s a bunch of stuff that you have "in development" that isn’t in the SVN? What determines whether a change is committed or not? Is it when you are 100% happy with it, or is it when one of your colleagues needs to build on it?

The testing team will receive a test build from an SVN snapshot at some point.

All great questions, and ones that we need to answer, but as of this moment, there is very little organization to our SVN processes. Something that Victor and I are in the process of addressing via a set of clear and concise committer rules, hopefully based on the stable-branch approach to SVN usage. This basically means individual committers, as well as major features with multiple contributors collaborating, would have their own feature branches that would be merged with trunk only when approved by those with permissions to commit to the trunk. Then the branches are refreshed or recreated as the merges are completed and new work begins.

IMO, if we want to have official public pre-releases, they should be done from stable SVN snapshots that can be created just like the current release branches.

Paul, actually Wayfinder as well as Ditto are in SVN, its just not available to the public yet.

@Jason, when you get a chance, can you look into allowing viewing of the Ditto folder in SVN? Thanks.