MyBB Community Forums

Really disappointing this was moved to 1.6.10.

(2012-12-14, 03:47 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]Really disappointing this was moved to 1.6.10.

With good reason. 1.6.9 is coming out soon.

(2012-12-14, 03:47 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]Really disappointing this was moved to 1.6.10.

It will be fixed with the next maintenance release. Does is make a real difference whether it is called 1.6.9 or 1.6.10 or even 1.6.11?

(2012-12-14, 03:46 PM)StingReay Wrote: [ -> ]

(2012-12-14, 07:46 AM)netsat Wrote: [ -> ]mybb team
please fix is make +5 characters for reply..

Or to not hardcode the title length limit.

That's not possible unless we decide to use something like text for the column type in the database - which is bad database design.

(2012-12-14, 03:50 PM)Nathan Malcolm Wrote: [ -> ]

(2012-12-14, 03:47 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]Really disappointing this was moved to 1.6.10.

With good reason. 1.6.9 is coming out soon.

And this issue was discovered over eight months ago. It doesn't matter what the version is called, but it does matter that a serious usability bug is apparently not important enough to be fixed with any sense of urgency.

(2012-12-14, 04:12 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]

(2012-12-14, 03:50 PM)Nathan Malcolm Wrote: [ -> ]

(2012-12-14, 03:47 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]Really disappointing this was moved to 1.6.10.

With good reason. 1.6.9 is coming out soon.

And this issue was discovered over eight months ago. It doesn't matter what the version is called, but it does matter that a serious usability bug is apparently not important enough to be fixed with any sense of urgency.

When 1.6.9 comes out you'll see exactly why it was deferred to 1.6.10. At this point in time, it isn't a high priority.

The whole titles for replies never made any sense for me i dont even get what people use it for but okay. Isn't there a line that can be edited to simply remove the : "RE : " which is not in my opinion needed anyways. Because i think anybody can figure out in a thread its a reaction to the thread if its not the first post.

PS: would also be fine if the thread title is removed and it only says RE as title for the post.

(2012-12-14, 04:24 PM)Nathan Malcolm Wrote: [ -> ]

(2012-12-14, 04:12 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]

(2012-12-14, 03:50 PM)Nathan Malcolm Wrote: [ -> ]

(2012-12-14, 03:47 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]Really disappointing this was moved to 1.6.10.

With good reason. 1.6.9 is coming out soon.

And this issue was discovered over eight months ago. It doesn't matter what the version is called, but it does matter that a serious usability bug is apparently not important enough to be fixed with any sense of urgency.

When 1.6.9 comes out you'll see exactly why it was deferred to 1.6.10. At this point in time, it isn't a high priority.

IT'S A BUG. It SHOULD be given priority. No matter what it is, it's still a big within your software and why you're even bothering to release 1.6.9 without fixing this after its been 8 months is beyond me. Not everyone will know to come to this thread for the fix they want.

(2012-12-14, 04:54 PM)Jason L. Wrote: [ -> ]IT'S A BUG. It SHOULD be given priority. No matter what it is, it's still a big within your software and why you're even bothering to release 1.6.9 without fixing this after its been 8 months is beyond me. Not everyone will know to come to this thread for the fix they want.

Simply because there are more important issues which need to be fixed in 1.6.9. We're not deferring it for the sake of it.

(2012-12-14, 04:54 PM)Jason L. Wrote: [ -> ]why you're even bothering to release 1.6.9 without fixing this after its been 8 months is beyond me.

1.6.9 is an important security update and it must be easy to upgrade without the risk of breaking templates, plugins or modified files. People must upgrade their forums as soon as possible and not days, weeks or months after the release like most do.