- Thread starter
- #1
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 253
- Admin
- #2
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,974
Unfortunately this is too little, too late for me and it could still be years before it gets a release candidate.
I tested it today and think I spotted two issues. One, they didn't appear to include the "Settings_bak.php" file in the package (it's missing) but needed. Also, when I enabled the Calender and tried to visit it on the front-end. I get a blank page and later compared URL used leading to it with SMF 2.0 installed (stable version). Both use exact same URL link leading to calendar and works fine with stable version - not with the Beta 3 of 2.1 though it didn't. I tested both versions on purpose to rule out the page not being blocked by Mod Sec - but both versions used same URL link leading to Calendar. So not sure why it shows for 2.0 version and not Beta 3 of 2.1 on front-end?
Also tested it running under both PHP 7.0 and 7.1, not sure about this one - but both was giving error logs from cache directory (when cache was enabled) to indicate something used in a PHP file might now be depreciated. Soon as I switched to PHP 5.6 the error logs stopped, so it seems linked with using PHP 7+ unless I'm missing a php module that needs be activated causing it
Also tested it running under both PHP 7.0 and 7.1, not sure about this one - but both was giving error logs from cache directory (when cache was enabled) to indicate something used in a PHP file might now be depreciated. Soon as I switched to PHP 5.6 the error logs stopped, so it seems linked with using PHP 7+ unless I'm missing a php module that needs be activated causing it
Last edited:
I just downloaded the full zip of it now and can see the same Settings_bak.php file is missing from package. When you install the software and go into server settings (I think it was)? You get showed an error message saying permission is wrong on Settings_bak.php, but when I looked on host the file isn't there included in the package. I compared SMF 2.0 package and that same file is included in that.
So the zip file just downloaded looks same to me without that needed Settings_bak.php file included in it
So the zip file just downloaded looks same to me without that needed Settings_bak.php file included in it
I just read SMF forum and left a message. Looks like the Upgrade package was missing an helper.php file also, which they later added. Maybe you mean that package, but that is the 'upgrade package' and not the full install one.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 312
at last, another Beta released, 
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 19
It's like they're saying: "off to Xenforo y'all!"
- Thread starter
- #9
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 253
It's a little different it is a truly free open source BSD project versus xenforo with paid full time developers. phpBB had the same issue at one point but they are in good shape now.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 19
That is true and I have been a follower and satisfied user since... YABB and YABB SE1. I built a strong community on SMF 1.1 and then 2.0.
But things move forward. Whether open source or not, when you have invested time and knowledge on something which fails to evolve and stop seeing it as a script fan, you have to own up as a community administrator. And given the issues with the massive move towards mobile device browsing and the "war" with social media, one has to protect his work first of all and choose the tools that help in that direction. And SMF is just not up to the trend. I wish it was.
But things move forward. Whether open source or not, when you have invested time and knowledge on something which fails to evolve and stop seeing it as a script fan, you have to own up as a community administrator. And given the issues with the massive move towards mobile device browsing and the "war" with social media, one has to protect his work first of all and choose the tools that help in that direction. And SMF is just not up to the trend. I wish it was.
- Thread starter
- #12
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 253
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 152
You outdid yourselves with this version guys. Keep up the great work.
I have one question though, someone said that Smf 2.1. has been in developement for 6 years and it has not reached the stable version yet. What is with the delay? 6 years is quite a long time to be spent on one version imho.
I have one question though, someone said that Smf 2.1. has been in developement for 6 years and it has not reached the stable version yet. What is with the delay? 6 years is quite a long time to be spent on one version imho.
- Thread starter
- #15
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 253
It has been a long time going. It is an open source project with unpaid volunteer same can be said when phpbb took a loong time to go to 3.1. But there is active development you can follow on github https://github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1/milestones I do agree wish there was a shorter release cycle for sure.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I read at the smf forum that the Gihub version is being actively developed. That is where I downloaded my copy of smf 2.1.
- Thread starter
- #17
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 253
There is a clone download version at https://github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1 you can use. Just remember it is a beta release so there might not be an upgrade path to the full version.
What, there will no upgrade from the beta versions to the stable/final version?
- Thread starter
- #19
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 253
May or may not. Generally only the RC releases are supported when upgrading to final.
I really hope that the betas will be supported too. I have seen quite a few users who are using smf 2.1 beta 4. I hope that we will not be left stranded.