XF2 support

[Arnox]

is there a limitiation to which you will maintain compatibility in favor of innovation?

In the end, this may lead to a situation where the amount of legacy code and its maintenance will consume too much time and resources and bring overhead.

2.4 is an LTS release of XenForo. 2.3 was originally going to be that, but they decided to extend the feature set out a bit, probably due to the fact that, as I just learned, the Froala libraries for the editor XF uses are incredibly old and busted now and need to be replaced as soon as possible.

3.0 is where we're appropriately going to start getting huge breaking changes.

 

[smallwheels]

2.4 is an LTS release of XenForo. 2.3 was originally going to be that, but they decided to extend the feature set out a bit, probably due to the fact that, as I just learned, the Froala libraries for the editor XF uses are incredibly old and busted now and need to be replaced as soon as possible.

3.0 is where we're appropriately going to start getting huge breaking changes.

Maybe you should read a little more and use a little less phantasy... This seems pretty wild, close to the edge to disinformation. How do you come to your statements? The posts by the XF crew do tell a vastly different story as I perceived them. Also "LTS" is in my eyes completely inadequately used by you - no such thing at all in the XF world. Neither was 2.3 intended as such (or can be considered as such) nor is 2.4.
3.0 will - from what is known until now - mainly deal with themes, optics etc.. The breaking technical changes below the surface have been in 2.3 already (and some will come with 2.4 because of the new editor).

 

[Sim]

2.4 is an LTS release of XenForo. 2.3 was originally going to be that, but they decided to extend the feature set out a bit, probably due to the fact that, as I just learned, the Froala libraries for the editor XF uses are incredibly old and busted now and need to be replaced as soon as possible.

3.0 is where we're appropriately going to start getting huge breaking changes.

Where are you getting this LTS stuff from? I've not heard anyone from XenForo mention anything about that?

 

[Paul B]

Where are you getting this LTS stuff from? I've not heard anyone from XenForo mention anything about that?

That's because we haven't.

2.4 is a release like any other.

 

[Arnox]

Maybe you should read a little more and use a little less phantasy... This seems pretty wild, close to the edge to disinformation. How do you come to your statements? The posts by the XF crew do tell a vastly different story as I perceived them. Also "LTS" is in my eyes completely inadequately used by you - no such thing at all in the XF world. Neither was 2.3 intended as such (or can be considered as such) nor is 2.4.
3.0 will - from what is known until now - mainly deal with themes, optics etc.. The breaking technical changes below the surface have been in 2.3 already (and some will come with 2.4 because of the new editor).

Where are you getting this LTS stuff from? I've not heard anyone from XenForo mention anything about that?

2.4 is the last of the of the 2.x releases. It would make a ton of sense that that will be supported for a long time, even if only just with needed security updates since I'm sure 3.0 will introduce with it tons of breaking changes that people may not be able to accommodate at this time or simply don't want to. It is true that XF has never explicitly said that 2.4 (or 2.3) will be an LTS release, but on the other hand, common sense would dictate that it is hardly wise to quickly cut off security updates for a VERY long-running major version with years of work, prior knowledge of its systems, and add-ons behind it.

That said, I probably should indeed have added a disclaimer at the beginning of my last post stating that XF hasn't explicitly said 2.4 will be an LTS release, even if I do strongly think it should be considered by the XF team as such.

 

[Sim]

2.4 is the last of the of the 2.x releases. It would make a ton of sense that that will be supported for a long time, even if only just with needed security updates since I'm sure 3.0 will introduce with it tons of breaking changes that people may not be able to accommodate at this time or simply don't want to. It is true that XF has never explicitly said that 2.4 (or 2.3) will be an LTS release, but on the other hand, common sense would dictate that it is hardly wise to quickly cut off security updates for a VERY long-running major version with years of work, prior knowledge of its systems, and add-ons behind it.

That said, I probably should indeed have added a disclaimer at the beginning of my last post stating that XF hasn't explicitly said 2.4 will be an LTS release, even if I do strongly think it should be considered by the XF team as such.

Meh - they supported v1.5 until 18 months after v2.0 (stable) was released, with security updates until 25 months. I think that's plenty of time for a small company like XenForo to continue supporting v2.x - they don't have a huge team available to continue supporting legacy software for extended periods.

I'm still running v1.5 on my two largest sites - just because it's no longer supported, doesn't mean it won't continue to work.

 

[Paul B]

.It would make a ton of sense that that will be supported for a long time

It will be supported exactly the same as previous releases.

 

[Arnox]

It will be supported exactly the same as previous releases.

Why not support it (again, with just security updates) for longer?

 

[Arantor]

Why not support it (again, with just security updates) for longer?

Because even "just" security updates requires time, time spent not working on the newer one.

And since we don't know if 3.0 will use a newer version of PHP yet (probably) you run into 'well, this version and that version have the same security bug but I have to fix it two different ways for reasons'

The maintenance effort is actually surprising. (Source: more than one security release of SMF was authored by me.)

 

[Arnox]

Because even "just" security updates requires time, time spent not working on the newer one.

And since we don't know if 3.0 will use a newer version of PHP yet (probably) you run into 'well, this version and that version have the same security bug but I have to fix it two different ways for reasons'

The maintenance effort is actually surprising. (Source: more than one security release of SMF was authored by me.)

True, but if there was ever a version that justified the extra work, wouldn't it be the last 2.x release?

 

[Arantor]

True, but if there was ever a version that justified the extra work, wouldn't it be the last 2.x release?

points to 1.x as precedent for not really doing this

 

[Arnox]

points to 1.x as precedent for not really doing this

Ok, but maybe we should have done it for 1.5 as well. Hell, @Sim already said he's still running 1.5 installations to this day. (I mean... I really wouldn't now, but there you go.)

 

[smallwheels]

2.4 is the last of the of the 2.x releases.

Is it? Once more you know more than the XF crew itself:

We’re very serious about it being a shorter development cycle. We’re not even ruling out the possibility of 2.5 before 3.0. So rather than adding feature upon feature like we were guilty of with 2.3, things that aren’t appropriate for 2.4 that can’t be delivered at a relatively short notice could always be deferred (be that to 2.5 if that ends up being a thing, 3.0 if appropriate or even 3.1).

As I said before:

Maybe you should read a little more and use a little less phantasy...

 

[Arnox]

Is it? Once more you know more than the XF crew itself:

I understand you guys calling me out at first as I did write something that should have been better worded, but at this point, I think you're picking nits. My whole point is that WHATEVER the last version of 2.x is, it should be an LTS release with a longer security support window than any regular release. Doesn't matter if the last 2.x release is 2.4 or 2.5 or 2.10.

 

[Arantor]

And you seem to be ignoring the fact, again, that not only is there precedent for it not being, the majority will make the move because once the bulk of addons go over (and they will in some form or another) there will be more reasons to make the leap.

Yes, some people still run 1.x but the majority of those are capable of doing their own maintenance - it does not change the fact that the XF team do not maintain it.

Some people still run Windows XP on their computer, just because you can doesn’t mean you necessarily should.

 

[Arnox]

And you seem to be ignoring the fact, again, that not only is there precedent for it not being, the majority will make the move because once the bulk of addons go over (and they will in some form or another) there will be more reasons to make the leap.

Yes, some people still run 1.x but the majority of those are capable of doing their own maintenance - it does not change the fact that the XF team do not maintain it.

Some people still run Windows XP on their computer, just because you can doesn’t mean you necessarily should.

So I looked into the lifecycle for 1.5 and apparently, it was something like 4 years so... That's more than enough time for me. I would have considered 3 years good. I guess we're arguing over nothing.

the majority will make the move

For the record, I've actually seen XF 1.5 used quite a bit more than you would expect. I even saw it on the (very recently defunct) RedFox.bz forums.

 

[smallwheels]

My whole point is that WHATEVER the last version of 2.x is, it should be an LTS release with a longer security support window than any regular release.

So, if you demand this: How long exactly is the security support window for regular XF releases? If you demand a longer window you obviously consider this not long enough and if you do so you must know, how long this window exactly is. So: How long is it? And how long would you demand it to be?

Regarding LTS: The first time I stumbled upon the Term was with Ubuntu Server when they invented LTS support. This must have been a long time ago, I think version 3 which must have been 2005ish. The idea behind LTS-Releases is to provide a stable environment for those who do not or cannot upgrade frequently due to risk, incompatibilities or huge effort due to the number of installations. So it is typically used only for software with very frequent release cycles (i.e. Ubuntu has a release every six months). Not exactly the situation of XenForo.

If you look how long those LTS timelines are and what softwares they exist for you'll recognize: Mainly Operating Systems, Frameworks like Java or Server Software with very frequent release cycles high customization efforts. The duration of LTS support is (if you leave out operating systems, frameworks and the Linux kernel) in most cases between 6 months and 3 years.

If you look at the release cyle of XenForo you'll notice:

2011 1.0
2015 1.5
2017 2.0
2020 2.2
2024 2.3

Not exactly what I'd call a fast paced environment, longer than most LTS would support in the first hand. In fact people have been complaining about a too slow release cycle - not about a too fast one.

But if nontheless you'd still insist on a LTS-alike support vor a version fot the time being for me this would be 2.2.16 because this is where most of the installs are (and where many are stuck for one reason or another) and before the breaking changes that came with 2.3 and the removal of jQuery. From what I read once you made the jump to 2.3 the following releases inc. 3.0 will probably be easier. However - time will tell what future releases will bring and how much pain and effort will be tied to an upgrade. Plus it is probably worth noting, that LTS typically only brings the most urgent security patches but no features and barely any bugfixes. Plus obviously you'd have to have a subscription/license extension to make use of it. Given the countless statements troughout the forum that a lot of people only buy extensions once a relevant feature release comes out an LTS release sounds a bit like a dead horse to me. The more, as past releases of XF got security patches in the past for quite a while and the very limited size of the XF team.

Conclusion: I don't see your point at all - to me it seems you are once more creating a lot of noise and buzzwording w/o foundation and lacking any basic information for your statements.

 

[smallwheels]

So I looked into the lifecycle for 1.5 and apparently, it was something like 4 years so...

Latest 1.5 release was in May 2019, according to Wikipedia. 5,5 years ago (and 1,5 years after 2.0 was released). The latest 2.1 relase was btw. in June 2024 - a whole four years after the release of 2.2,

I guess we're arguing over nothing.

Exactly. And why do we do that? Because once more you started a dogfight with wild statements, based on plain phantasy, w/o bothering to get basic information about the topic you are talking about in beforehand.

 

[Mr Lucky]

But if nontheless you'd still insist on a LTS-alike support vor a version fot the time being for me this would be 2.2.16

Fewer posts complaining that Font Awesome doesn’t work

 

[Arnox]

So, if you demand this

I'm not DEMANDING anything. Don't be ridiculous.

How long exactly is the security support window for regular XF releases?

Ok, bruh. I don't know that, but technically, you actually don't fully know either because XF (strangely) does not officially publish how long they will support a specific version unless they announce specifically that that version is nearing EOL or if you ask them directly like I did. (Totally forgot I asked this by the way. lol) Anything beyond this is an educated guess, and even when I asked at the time, XF themselves didn't even know. So no, this is not "phantasy".

So it is typically used only for software with very frequent release cycles (i.e. Ubuntu has a release every six months). Not exactly the situation of XenForo.

Let's look at the release cycle again, shall we?

2.3 July 4, 2024
2.2 September 29, 2020
2.1 January 30, 2019
2.0 November 28, 2017
1.5 August 18, 2015

Of the four interim periods above, it's true that only one of them broke tradition and had a shorter development (2.1->2.2) BUT if we look at 2.3->2.4 now, we're probably looking at a Q1 2025 launch if I had to guess. Maybe even sooner if we're pretty lucky. That's roughly SIX MONTHS between 2.3 and 2.4. So we can't just look at the past and say, "lol There's no precedent for quicker releases," because there is definitely some precedent, and now, even recent precedent at that. But even if that above point of mine was somehow "phantastically" completely invalidated, it doesn't change my original point that 2.4 (assuming, that is, that it will be the last 2.x release) is a marked release of a very long-running version of XenForo and not a regular point release.

But if nontheless you'd still insist on a LTS-alike support vor a version fot the time being for me this would be 2.2.16 because this is where most of the installs are (and where many are stuck for one reason or another) and before the breaking changes that came with 2.3 and the removal of jQuery.

That's fair. I don't really have an answer to that. On one hand, I'm sure you're correct that that might have been the more ideal version to declare as an LTS release, but on the other, having more than one LTS release for XF to support is definitely not something I'd be recommending either, and 2.4 (or whatever the last 2.x release will be) still has a ton of merit for being the designated LTS version.

Plus it is probably worth noting, that LTS typically only brings the most urgent security patches but no features and barely any bugfixes.

And that's fine. Security updates on a public-facing website are extremely important.

Plus obviously you'd have to have a subscription/license extension to make use of it. Given the countless statements troughout the forum that a lot of people only buy extensions once a relevant feature release comes out an LTS release sounds a bit like a dead horse to me.

XF has released individual files for patching publicly without having to pay for a license extension, so this is not really an issue.

And why do we do that?

Oh, this will be good...

Because once more you started a dogfight

lol I didn't start anything. Stop being so sensitive. Forums are for discussion and, yes, for disagreement. Maybe ESPECIALLY for disagreement. The point is to talk and discuss and share viewpoints so an issue or issues can be resolved effectively.

People talk and discuss their grievances and issues they see here because they (including me) care about XenForo. They want to see it succeed. What would be far worse is if this thread was completely dead and nobody cared.