XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended

sign petition today!

Make a donation

Search

Advanced Search

Local Support Sites

Cumulus Tag Cloud

more...

New Users

Registering user

# 96568

dvsshoescom

Welcome to XOOPS!

News Archives

Next article » « Previous article

Posted by Herko on 2006/3/6 9:50:00 (28400 reads) | Posted on XOOPS

This has been going round in the forums for quite a while now, but it's time to put an end to the countless questions and uncertainties. The XOOPS Core Team has labelled the XOOPS 2.0.x series (currently at 2.0.13.2) as the version that is recommended for production websites.

XOOPS 2.0.x is the most stable XOOPS release to date. This version has the benefit of years of bugfixes, security patches and performance enhancements. This version is compatible with almost every module and theme created for the XOOPS system. This version is therefore recommended for use on production websites.

Other versions
XOOPS 2.2.x suffers from several behavioral changes that give it a limited compatibility with the current third-party modules base. Also, this version does not have the years of bugfixes, patches and enhancements to make it as stable and fast as the XOOPS 2.0.x series.
Next versions (XOOPS 2.3+) will step back to the original behavior to regain a maximum compatibility level: this means that, even if we'll ensure users can upgrade to future versions, a full compatibility between these versions and modules specially made for 2.2.x cannot be guaranteed and that they may have to be updated to work on XOOPS 2.4+.
Also note that, if you plan to build an highly popular site, you'll get better results by using the latest 2.0.x release, due to resource issues with the XOOPS 2.2.x series.

XOOPS 2.2.x will still be supported: patches will be made, the code will be maintained, bugfixes will still be released, end-user support will still be given on the XOOPS.org website.

Developers are recommended to read the XOOPS 2.3 roadmap on the XOOPS Core development site for information on how to continue development, and module compatibility.

Next article » « Previous article

Bookmark this article at these sites

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

That's a pity, because I like the 'style' of the 2.2 serie (as site admin)
Is there a way to downgrade to 2.0.13-2 from 2.2.4?

Posted: 2006/3/6 14:53 • Updated: 2006/3/6 14:53

svaha

The XOOPS 2.3/2.4 'series' which is still in active development, will be a lot more then what XOOPS 2.2 brought to the users and site admins. In fact, at a French XOOPSers meeting last weekend, the changes in XOOPS 2.3alpha were described as 'bigger than the changes fron XOOPS 1.3 to 2.0' (where the Smarty Template Engine was first introduced). So don't think development has moved backwards

You should check the Core Development Site for more info on the alpha's and plans.

As for a downgrade script, you can find that here.

Herko

Posted: 2006/3/6 15:03 • Updated: 2006/3/6 15:03

Herko

I came to the conclusion that 2.2x was not going to work for me some time ago. I moved everything "back" to stability and can now count on things working the way they should.

Posted: 2006/3/6 15:28 • Updated: 2006/3/6 15:28

charpres

Quote:

So don't think development has moved backwards You should check the Core Development Site for more info on the alpha's and plans.

No offense, but with no updates on that site...

and missed deadlines...

as one user asked - "no time for xoops?"

Posted: 2006/3/6 16:33 • Updated: 2006/3/6 16:33

seventhseal

did they ever set a deadline? a deadline for what?

skalpa has internet problems too at the moment, not through his fault either, but thats the way of the world..

and lol, deadlines are very very rarely met on any open source project, you should know that by now.

this isn't a business where you get a warning and your wage cut etc for missing important deadlines..

Posted: 2006/3/6 16:45 • Updated: 2006/3/6 16:45

m0nty

While I'm working with skalpa on the LDAP integration, I confirm that the new 2.3 version will be a major evolution of XOOPS.
And the admin interface will be entirely change toi a new one.

Posted: 2006/3/6 16:56 • Updated: 2006/3/6 16:56

pemen

I wish I would have known from the beginning that 2.2.4 is sort of a dead end.
Sure, it will be supported, except that modules won't work in the future releases of XOOPS...

Posted: 2006/3/6 18:01 • Updated: 2006/3/6 18:01

tempel33

Quote:

This is the original and one-and-only XOOPS website, not the XOOPS Cube website. PLease advertise other systems elsewhere.
Herko

I don't understand why you still advertising Myth's Xoops 2.2 and Skalpa's Xoopsphere on Xoops.org and not the XOOPS 2.0.13a JP branch?

If you're "refactoring xoops", why not move to Marc Andre domain's Xoopsphere.com? And create a new project and community?

Posted: 2006/3/6 18:46 • Updated: 2006/3/6 18:46

xguide

xguide wtf?

2.0.13a JP is xoops cube. but i'm pretty sure u already know that.

xoosphere will be xoops 4, and xoops 2.2 is xoops.org project. and i'm sure you know that too.

will people give it a #OOPS# break plugging other systems indirectly.

Posted: 2006/3/6 20:37 • Updated: 2006/3/6 20:37

m0nty

You're right! Deadlines don't exist in OPEN world, so why bother talking about milestone dates? Doesn't make any sense at all. Especially when the last update on the devteam site was January 11 - hey, it's no skin off our backsides. We *all* still make our money off what's available. So what's the fuss about official/recommended/stable version - it's all the same. It's kind of overkill if you think about it. But, if folks feel better because someone says it's so - who am I to argue with logic?

As I see it- the world of XOOPS is one big drama right now. The BIG race! There's some good and there's some evil. I could care less who "wins," because at the end of the day developers will develop to the demand and the 3PD will always win. Xoops is a great CMS but at a cross-roads. I am rooting for it all the way!

XoopsCube - the new 2.1 alpha version just might be overkill. Can there possibly be any more abstraction layers between code and presentation? All for the sake of customization alternatives and security?

And then we have Code-Plus - who knows what's going to come out of it? It's got a sexy look, but is it the same "big block chevy" underneath - my bet is yeah.

There will alwyas be a new widget maker with a new widget. At the time, some developers may buy that widget. The smart developer will stay the course. We aren't the ones who would eventually get criticized for our lack of development effort - after all - it's FREE!

Posted: 2006/3/6 23:39 • Updated: 2006/3/6 23:39

seventhseal

Hello,

For what I saw, the next Xoops will be, not a new release nor a new version but a complete revolution.

bye,
Hervé

Posted: 2006/3/7 2:27 • Updated: 2006/3/7 2:27

hervet

I agree with Hervet.

For example, manage templates will be very easy :
copy your file template from a module in the directory theme, modify this file and it runs your custumization...

Posted: 2006/3/7 3:29 • Updated: 2006/3/7 3:30

alain01

Quote:

seventhseal:

So what's the fuss about official/recommended/stable version - it's all the same. It's kind of overkill if you think about it.

No, it's necessary for new users, who before didn't know which version to use.

Posted: 2006/3/7 4:57 • Updated: 2006/3/7 4:57

bluenova

Hi,

This article has been translated to arabic:

LINK

Posted: 2006/3/7 5:30 • Updated: 2006/3/7 6:17

Mowaffaq

Quote:

For what I saw, the next Xoops will be, not a new release nor a new version but a complete revolution.

bye,
Hervé

Hervé - you are a person of few words - but I like how you "preach!"

Quote:

For example, manage templates will be very easy :
copy your file template from a module in the directory theme, modify this file and it runs your custumization...

That is going to be great!

Quote:

No, it's necessary for new users, who before didn't know which version to use.

Point taken - but if that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to take the link to any 2.2.x download away? To me, the if 2.0.13.x is the recommended, and the work Skalpa is doing (and I wish I could buy him plenty 'o Mt. Dew (or beer) to code plenty 'o faster!), then 2.2.x is a useless link. That being said, I have many sites running both - although I have my own hardening in place, 2.2.x has been no problem at all...

Quote:

This article has been translated to arabic

I don't know why, but I just like looking at your site! It's the arabic or soemthing. I can't read a bit of it, but it looks really cool! I mean that!

Posted: 2006/3/7 8:30 • Updated: 2006/3/7 8:30

seventhseal

Dear all,

One of the most important reasons for someone to choose xoops 2.2.x is the EXTENDED PROFILES. Some of us (still) need the convenience that it gives and DO NOT want to use hacks. I guess Myth wanted to solve this ~~problem~~ issue that way and it is appreciated.
As long as and if xoops 2.0.x (2.3)solve this ~~problem~~ issue, there will not be any particular reason to use 2.2.x.

Edited to avoid misunderstandings...

Posted: 2006/3/7 11:48 • Updated: 2006/3/7 12:24

gtop00

Sorry my english is not so good..

what does this article mean??

is 2.13.2 finished... is it googd or bad??

or what..??

should we leave 2.13.2???

please answer..

my all xoops 2.13.2...

if it is not good..

Posted: 2006/3/7 12:16 • Updated: 2006/3/7 12:16

orgunozcu

Quote:

...is therefore recommended for use on production websites.

That says all.-

Posted: 2006/3/7 12:27 • Updated: 2006/3/7 12:27

gtop00

so.. 2.13.2 is good and i can go on using it?? am i??

Posted: 2006/3/7 12:31 • Updated: 2006/3/7 12:31

orgunozcu

orgunozcu, yes you can use 2.13.2. It is good.

Posted: 2006/3/7 12:58 • Updated: 2006/3/7 12:58

wtravel

wtravel thanks you can understand my english.. and i can understand your english.. thankss

Posted: 2006/3/7 13:13 • Updated: 2006/3/7 13:13

orgunozcu

I agree and I look forward to an upgrade path from 2.2.4 to 2.4. I assume that optional fields, as in the Extended Profiles of 2.2.4 will be available in 2.4 and that the upgrade script will convert them?

2.2.4 seems pretty stable to me. I have found only one problem recently, and that is that I cannot enter dates correctly into a date field. If I enter 2006/1/1, using the admin pages (modules/profile/admin/user.php) for example, only 2006 ends up in the db record. If I edit my own profile from the Edit Account link (i.e. modules/profile/edituser.php) entries in a date field are accepted correctly. If anyone knows a fix, please let me know. If I don't find a solution soon, I'll post to the proper forum.

Barry

Posted: 2006/3/7 13:28 • Updated: 2006/3/7 13:33

barryc

The french community will soon publish a "compte rendu" (also available in english) of a meeting we had this week end with Skalpa

Posted: 2006/3/7 14:12 • Updated: 2006/3/7 14:12

hervet

Ups.

I've used Xoops 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 on my three latest websites. The one that will have the strongest workload is the one with 2.2.3, but it uses pretty conventional modules (WF-Sections, a heavily hacked News 1.4, WF-Channel, WF-Channel Clone).

They work fine at this moment. Some minor bugs on the mailing and password system, fixed by myself with the help of the forums.

SHould I be worried?

Posted: 2006/3/8 3:53 • Updated: 2006/3/8 3:56

nachenko

A little more clarification, as well as response to barryc's comment "2.2.4 seems pretty stable to me":
The advice for using 2.0* is made mainly upon the consideraton of sustainable (or compliant) behavior for future XOOPS releases, and a variety of unpected changes in XOOPS 2.2*, which __could__ lead to not good performance.

Should I be worried if I am using XOOPS 2.2*?
I don't think so.
It's fine to downgrade to 2.0132, but it is also ok to stay with your current 2.2* till 2.4 comes out if the 2.2* works fine for you.

Posted: 2006/3/8 4:08 • Updated: 2006/3/8 4:11

phppp

Thanks for that note phppp. 2.2.x DOES work fine for me. My co-maintainers at the main site I am running were getting bald spots from pulling hair out of their heads because of the admittedly not so intuitive administration interface on 2.0.x.

Just the menu system in the admin interface alone makes the 2.2 upgrade worthwhile for me.

I am sticking with 2.2

Posted: 2006/3/8 4:43 • Updated: 2006/3/8 4:43

andersa

Quote:

Poster: seventhseal Posted: 2006/3/7
Point taken - but if that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to take the link to any 2.2.x download away?

No, because there are functions in 2.2.X that users were crying out for that are not available in the 2.0.X series. So the choice is there depending on the needs of the enduser.

Posted: 2006/3/8 4:54 • Updated: 2006/3/8 4:55

bluenova

Thanks PHPPP.

Posted: 2006/3/8 4:57 • Updated: 2006/3/8 4:57

nachenko

Quote:

Quote:

Poster: seventhseal Posted: 2006/3/7
Point taken - but if that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to take the link to any 2.2.x download away?
Poster: bluenova Posted: 2006/3/8
No, because there are functions in 2.2.X that users were crying out for that are not available in the 2.0.X series. So the choice is there depending on the needs of the enduser.

You cna't pick and shoose your quotes - not an argument, but you've now pointed out a flexibility weakness in decision making at the time. I don't really recall Quote:

user's crying out

but I do recall a lot of crying after it came out.

And many of them have moved on to create their own widget - may the force be with them...

My point originally was more a rhetorical question, with me answering myself. 2.2.x works just fine. 2.0.13.x is the RECOMMENDED version if you are either new to the whole XOOPS experience, or just can't decide on your own. I think it's a fine move, and I look forward to 2.4! Anyone running 2.2.x is not going to have any more problems, any more risk of hack, any fewer mods to run - than anyone running 2.0.13.x.

So, all great comments and retorts - but as a 3PD, I don't see the fuss. Kind regards to all!

Posted: 2006/3/8 7:38 • Updated: 2006/3/8 7:38

seventhseal

Quote:

Poster: seventhseal Posted: 2006/3/8
You cna't pick and shoose your quotes - not an argument, but you've now pointed out a flexibility weakness in decision making at the time. I don't really recall Quote:

user's crying out

but I do recall a lot of crying after it came out.

I can asure you from a support point of view on xoops.org, we had many requests for the features available in 2.2.X (mainly regarding 'Extended Profiles' to be implemented.

The fact remains now, that we have 1 version which is very stable and 1 version with many features that the very stable version lacks. So the need to have both versions available still exists. Hopefully once we get to xoops 2.4 this will all be put behind us, and we can move on with 1 product.

Posted: 2006/3/8 7:48 • Updated: 2006/3/8 7:48

bluenova

Does the downgrade script work on 2.2.4?

Also, I am running 2.2.4 at the moment. IT's working quite nicely. From all the discussion, I am still unclear. Is it better for me to downgrade to 2.0.13 so that I am ready for the next version (2.3), or better to wait for the 2.4 version significantly further out?

Thanks!

Posted: 2006/3/8 9:00 • Updated: 2006/3/8 9:00

Chappy

as far as i'm aware the downgrade script does work with 2.2.4 (tho i haven't used it myself)

it's your choice really chappy, if you need the extended profiles then you'd be best staying on 2.2.4.. but it they aren't really necessary then the better option would be to downgrade, especially if you actually want to follow the upgrade paths from 2.0.x to 2.3 etc. otherwise as you say you're stuck with 2.2.4 till 2.4 version

Posted: 2006/3/8 9:08 • Updated: 2006/3/8 9:08

m0nty

Thanks, m0nty!

I really like 2.2.4, having worked through most of the issues, I think. But, I prefer the clearer upgrade path. As always, I appreciate your help and comments.

Posted: 2006/3/8 17:06 • Updated: 2006/3/8 17:06

Chappy

I don't see what isn't clear about the upgrade path from 2.2.x. An upgrade to 2.4 (or Xoops 3 or whatever it will be numbered) has been promised. It seems crystal clear to me.

Posted: 2006/3/8 17:19 • Updated: 2006/3/8 17:19

andersa

I'd recommend you stay with your working 2.2.4 site. There's no reason to downgrade if you have no issues with it, and you will be able to upgrade when the next version (in your case XOOPS 2.4) reaches a final release.

Rowd

Posted: 2006/3/8 17:28 • Updated: 2006/3/8 17:28

rowdie

Here's my take on 2.2x vs. 2.0.13x:

Yes, if you have one or the other working, by all means stick with it. I have used both in different configurations on different servers.

However, I have found that an installation of 2.2x with certain modules may not work on one particular sever but will work fine on another! 2.0.13x with the same configurations did not have any problems with either server.

Perhaps a few dozen hours of troubleshooting could have fixed the problems, but in my particular situation there was no compelling reason to stay with 2.2x so it was an easy choice to return to 2.0.13.x.

Everyone needs to decide, as stated several times in this thread, whether 2.2x has some feature that cannot be resisted. Otherwise, I would stick with the "recommended" version and wait, unless 2.2x is already being used.

Posted: 2006/3/8 18:03 • Updated: 2006/3/8 18:03

charpres

So are you saying Xoops 2.2.x is a mistake?

What a pity. Because I prefer 2.2.x to 2.0.1x.

So what should I do now?
Downgrade to 2.0.1?
Or wait for the 2.3 or 2.4 to come out?

I also don't quite understand this << even if we'll ensure users can upgrade to future versions, a full compatibility between these versions and modules specially made for 2.2.x cannot be guaranteed and that they may have to be updated to work on XOOPS 2.4+. >>

Are you saying that 2.3 and 2.4 won't be compatible with 2.2 modules?

If that is the case, 2.2 is really a dead end??

And you cannot even upgrade from 2.2 to 2.3 or 2.4 without messing up asome modules???

This is terrible. Whose idea is it to create 2.2 in the first place???

What do I do? Guess I will stick to 2.2. And when 2.3 or 2.4 comes - rebuild my entire site!

Gui

Posted: 2006/3/8 20:07 • Updated: 2006/3/8 20:07

zzzzsg

I think it is explained somewhat well. For me, at least, the broader issue is that those who have followed the 2.2 route will now have to wait until 2.4 to come up to speed. Unless, that is, they downgrade to 2.0.13. That, I think, gives a lot of pause leaving us wanting to make sure and carefully wiegh those choices and make certain we understand them and their implications. I'm not being critical, but given the rate of releases, that's a major consideration (that 2.4 is probably a significant way off). So, when the issue of clarity is raised, I think that that is the greater issue, not whether the path is spelled out (though I would say that that may also be a little confusing).

One more point, I tried running the downgrade script before I read all the good feedback from you folks. It does not work on 2.2.4. It bogs down when you go to downgrade the "blocks": It gives an undefined function error on line 690.

Posted: 2006/3/8 21:01 • Updated: 2006/3/8 21:01

Chappy

Ok, so if there is a 'new' XOOPS site being built, following the 'recommended' path, then 2.0.13.2 should be used. :D

(I see there are more than double the number of downloads for 2.2.3a final though, so we have to assume a LOT more people are running 2.2.x sites).

I downloaded 2.0.13.2 and noticed it included quite a number of modules, something that 2.2.x series doesn't do, I think (apart from private messaging and extended profiles).

These modules in 2.0.13.2 would no doubt also be the recommended modules, although modules can be replaced , like 'liaise' to replace the 'contact' module, for example, etc,etc.

We are testing a number of modules on a 2.2.4 site, and don't know if these modules are 'safe' or not (i.e. not being part of the 'core' module release included in 2.0.13.2).

Some modules are trying to cater for 'all' series though, like CBB, version 3.01:

Quote:

Hereby we are doing out best to make a package of modules compatible with all active XOOPS releases: XOOPS 2.013, XOOPS 2.2*, XOOPS 2.3

Whilst we are on the subject of 'recommended', is there a list/doc somewhere of recommended modules, in terms of safety/security issues.

Also, with version 2.0.13.2, can an anonymous user see profile details, and can other profile information be 'hidden', like the username/loginname ??

Thanks,

Peter

Posted: 2006/3/9 1:10 • Updated: 2006/3/9 1:10

peterr

Look forward to being able to get the new version, due to having serious issues with 2.0.13.2 and the INVALID SUBMISSION ERROR

Posted: 2006/3/9 5:40 • Updated: 2006/3/9 5:40

ICHI_UK

I just want to stress.... back up your database before trying to use that downgrade script. I lost a whole website and over 80 users because I forgot to back up my stuff first, and then the downgrade script killed everything. I ended up staying with 2.2.3 anyway because it was easier just to re-install it and re-configure everything. The problem I have now is I can't re-sql the user database with my OLD backup for some reason. I was able to restore almost everything else. Even the forum posts, although they now alll say they were posted by Ünregistered Users."

Posted: 2006/3/10 16:42 • Updated: 2006/3/10 16:42

preachur

I upgrade my 3 sites from 2.0.* to 2.2.4 one month back

Now I hope I can soon upgrade to 2.4

I will wait till xoops release 2.4 so I can upgrade

Posted: 2006/3/11 13:46 • Updated: 2006/3/11 13:46

kjk786

I had the exact same experience. Lost it all. To boot, because of some issues with mysql version - I guess per this post - it is seeming near impossible to get it back up to speed. This was on a 2.2 site. THe downgrade script did fine until it got to the downgrade of the blocks and through a undefined function error on the getBlocks function (line 690 if memory serves). Anyway, from my experience, I'd use caution as well before doing this...

Posted: 2006/3/11 23:30 • Updated: 2006/3/11 23:30

Chappy

After this bad experience I decided to experiment. If you have the ability to run a SQL query on your database you can save your site. If your downgrade goes bad, and it seems like you have lost everything:

1) Upload all files from the XOOPS 2.0.13.1 to 2.2.3 Final Upgrade package onto your server EXCEPT the install directory.

2) Run the query on your database using the mysql.structure text file in the install/sql folder. Then you will be able to get back in to your administration and update all of your modules again.

I wish I had tried this before I started all over. It could have avoided allot of work, AND it could have saved my users a bunch of grief as well.

Posted: 2006/3/12 21:50 • Updated: 2006/3/12 21:50

preachur

Is there anyone who has succesfuly downgraded from 2.2.x to 2.0.13?
If not then the downgrade script is useless as it is now and should be improved or removed.

Posted: 2006/3/13 9:24 • Updated: 2006/3/13 9:24

svaha

DownGrade no Work ?

What?s Scripts ?

Sorry, i not found it.

Giba

Posted: 2006/4/11 7:04 • Updated: 2006/4/11 7:04

giba

You can get the downgrade script here:

http://www.xoops.org/modules/core/singlefile.php?cid=4&lid=124

You can view a site that migrated from 2.2.3 to 2.0.13.x, with only minimal problems, here:

http://mywebresource.com/

In other words, the downgrade script does work. Just make sure you backup your files and database before you begin.

Posted: 2006/4/11 8:10 • Updated: 2006/4/11 8:10

JMorris

@JMorris - Thanks

Quote:

You can get the downgrade script here:

http://www.xoops.org/modules/core/singlefile.php?cid=4&lid=124

You can view a site that migrated from 2.2.3 to 2.0.13.x, with only minimal problems, here:

http://mywebresource.com/

This site working in 2.0.13.2 , very good.

. Just make sure you backup your files and database before you begin.

Posted: 2006/4/13 5:58 • Updated: 2006/4/13 5:58

giba

Thanks, JMorris, for your reply. Thanks also for taking some leadership during this difficult time for xoops. As to this comment, I can assure that I tried several times to get the downgrade scriopt to work. Each time, as I noted above, Quote:

The downgrade script did fine until it got to the downgrade of the blocks and threw an undefined function error on the getBlocks function (line 690 if memory serves).

I was unable to go any further past that point with nothing but blank pages. And, I did back up, it was just that the backup was only partial, due, I imagine, to a cpanel screwup. Anyway, just want folks to approach the downgrade script with a great deal of caution. For whatever reason it does NOT work in some cases, as some of the comments here demonstrate.

Perhaps if folks are able to work through that Blocks function error, it might be easily corrected. But, not on mine.

Perhaps the fact that the script is meant to downgrade from 2.2.3 instead of 2.2.4 created the block function error. Whatever, it didn't work, and I generally have a fairly good idea what I'm doing (except when it gets to coding).

Posted: 2006/4/23 2:41 • Updated: 2006/4/23 2:44

Chappy

Valid points. Not every situation is the same. I had minimal problems (most related to the block routine).

The trick is to set your templates to default, disable (not uninstall) all your modules (except system), and I believe I even had to remove all my custom blocks (just kept a backup in a text file).

The downgrade wasn't 100% error free. There were still some small data losses and a good deal of reconfiguring to do, but it was a far lot less painful than copying and pasting data in PHPMyAdmin from one branch to the next.

But again, you're points are valid. Extreme care should be taken when performing such drastic operations.

Best Regards,

James

Posted: 2006/4/28 21:47 • Updated: 2006/4/28 21:47

JMorris

It's time to eat some crow...

After having tried shis script several times, I finally got it to work full and completely. After reading the instructions more carefully, I realized that the 2.0.13.2 was supposed to be uploaded (2.2.4 overwritten) before the downgrade script was run. For whatever reason, I thought you uploaded 2.0.13.2 after the script was run. Yes, I did have to reset many group permissions, blocks, etc, but it was indeed better than the alternative. And, I did note a performance inprovement. Anyway, I didn't want my comments to unnecessarily drive people away. Just make sure to upload 2.0.13.2 first then follow the instructions that are listed above and with the script.

Posted: 2006/5/13 23:48 • Updated: 2006/5/13 23:48

Chappy

I concur. Xoops needs to support and keep a clean upgrade path. This backward move damages the project and the view of Xoops to the OpenSource community.

Xoops has to support and provide forward upgrade paths for releases it deemed "stable".

Posted: 2006/6/2 12:18 • Updated: 2006/6/2 12:18

srmcatee

Yeh this is why 2.0.14 to bridge the gap, this is like 3-4 months old news..

Posted: 2006/6/2 12:37 • Updated: 2006/6/2 12:37

wizanda

I'm developing an e-commerce module for Xoops 2.2.4 and some performance problems has been found. At first time I though my home PC was not powerful enought, but this is ever a bad idea...

My opinion:
it's better to come back and re-build then build on trash.
If you think 2.2.x code is not a good code, abandoning it may be a good idea.

Cheers

Posted: 2006/6/7 9:37 • Updated: 2006/6/7 9:37

camauz

Thanks for the info. I missed the news article announcing this.

Posted: 2006/6/30 14:29 • Updated: 2006/6/30 14:29

srmcatee

I gotta tell you guys this downgrade is scaring me...

I really want to downgrade because despite having a stable 2.2.3 install, I really want to use the xoops for google xfg module which i expect will seriously increase traffic to my site.

I've read all the tips here and have posted a question here for help if you can give me any advice I'd appreciate it.

BTW XFG should be built into any new core's in my opinion.

Andrew

Posted: 2006/6/30 18:56 • Updated: 2006/6/30 18:56

ukandrewf

I downgraded and all went pretty well except I can't get it to accept new users registering. And for the life of me I can't figure out how to set it do do so. I also can't get the EDIT USER INFO to work in the system perference area. Any ideas?

Posted: 2007/3/18 11:34 • Updated: 2007/3/18 11:34

glenn

I have version 2.0.13.1 - but it's mentioned that 2.0.13.2 is the recomneded version. SHould I upgrade? What does this version have that mine doesn't? Will it help being on 2.0.13.2 when I need to go to the next stable version? When is 2.2 going to be stable? I have a site that is "seasonal" and need to decide if I wait for 2.2 go to 2.0.13.2 or stay on 2.0.13.1

Posted: 2007/6/11 13:08 • Updated: 2007/6/11 13:08

MarcoDeMarco

Hi MarcoDeMarco,

The forum is the best place to ask a question (comments are for comments) but the latest stable and recommended version is 2.0.16. And yes you should upgrade as a number of security issues have been addressed since 2.0.13*.

Posted: 2007/6/11 16:07 • Updated: 2007/6/11 16:07

jdseymour

XOOPS vs. Herko Coomans

Make a donation

Search

Local Support Sites

Cumulus Tag Cloud

New Users

Archives

News Archives

XOOPS 2.0.13.2 labelled as recommended

About XOOPS

Learn

Use

Contribute

Meet us on:

Do you want your username revealed with your donation?
	Yes - List me as a Generous Donor
	No - List my donation as from an Anonymous Donor