[pLog-svn] r6088 - plog/branches/lifetype-1.2/class/security
plogworld at jon.limedaley.com
Wed Jan 2 13:55:48 EST 2008
One question - do you care about all updates, or updates to the
main API? I don't think our APIs change very often at all. I understand
the folks that heavily customize the stylesheets and admin templates have
trouble staying up-to-date, though using source control for their own
changes should make that trivial enough. I wrote documentation on how to
use SVK to merge local and our changes, and I have used that for some
If I had made lots of custom changes to LifeType, I probably
wouldn't upgrade on a live site, unless I knew I could do it late at night
or something when less people would notice. But, depending on how you use
LT's code, I'd think a "minor" upgrade, particularly the last couple,
would be trivial to do even on a live site.
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Andy wrote:
> Liftype is absolutely the best content providing system I have used. The
> API that you have available is giving me the ability to integrate an
> ASP.NET registration and user management application using C#.
> Do be rather frank, you are releasing updates in too short of intervals.
> I understand you all have great and new features and capabilities you want
> to make available right away. This, in many aspects is benificial to your
> status in the blogging and CMS world.
> However, it is also a downfall. Your platform is already at a stage that
> can be used in a production environment, and exceeds any other content
> system I have experienced.
> I understand you, as developers, are excited about releasing updates with
> perfected blocks of code, and new features. However, just as this is
> gaining great interest in Lifetype, the interest is moving behind in
> usability with the constant release of primary and minor versions.
> In one other aspect, who wants to use a system that can not be supported
> more than a few minor released versions.
> I am developing a platform integrating mono with C#, along with ASP, using
> your API. Your applications is already at a point of global usability,
> but others like myself are afraid of developing blogging platforms with
> the constant update you releases.
> At an early stage of development, frequent updates are reasonable. I
> believe your developers are at a point at which you should focuse on
> support of an amazing product version already available, and inforce a
> reasonable deployment of updates at a pre set minimum amount of months.
> 6 Months, 9 months is not a long time with other project standards.
> What your user base wants is support, security updates, and improvement
> updates, now that, in my opinion, you have overpassed any other comparible
> CMS platform.
> I understand you do not have a large amount of developers; you may even
> think, as it is, very popular now, that you may gain even more interest
> with early minor version updates. However, that is what is limiting
> production platforms to consider using your code.
> Please, slow down just a bit. It will creat a baseline application
> feature set, and its popularity, and the actuall use one can have of the
> systems in production that could, and would be provided: results in a
> truely impressive, global, popular platform - and response to your
> organization will, in my opinion improve even more with this alternative
> release cycle.
> Thank You,
> Andy Wright
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Oscar Renalias wrote:
>> I have been running 1.2.6 in renalias.net and lifetype.net, perhaps
>> it's time to release it?
>> On Dec 26, 2007 1:01 AM, Oscar Renalias <oscar at renalias.net> wrote:
>>> I just updated renalias.net and lifetype.net to 1.2.6, everything
>>> looks ok so far in there.
>>> I think we can go ahead with 1.2.6 within a couple of days...
>>> On Dec 24, 2007 10:43 PM, Jon Daley <plogworld at jon.limedaley.com> wrote:
>>>> I think 1.2.6 is ready to release, though I guess it would be good
>>>> to test my latest code to make sure I didn't break anything.
>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Jon Daley wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Mark Wu wrote:
>>>>>> Why can't we just put the bayesian filter in last order? it seems solve
>>>>>> problem easier.
>>>>> Does that fix everything? It is certainly the easiest (coding and
>>>>> performance) wise.
>>>>> With my thinking it seems like that fixes it - at least for now,
>>>>> because we don't have any other plugins that would use the inputs of others.
>>>>> And we can maybe do Mark's priority idea if we ever need that sort of thing.
>>>>> As long as it works for Paul's stuff, I think that sounds good. So,
>>>>> then we should take Mark's rev 6088 or whatever it is and use that, but
>>>>> modify it to pass in the previouslyRejected flag, and then put the bayesian
>>>>> at the end.
>>>>>> BTW, most lifetype installations in CJK site does rely on Bayesian Filter
>>>>>> to protect the spam attack. Because the tokenize algorithm can't separate
>>>>>> CJK into each atomic token. We don't use stop words and "white space" to
>>>>>> seperate a paragraph into "word".
>>>>> I am not sure what you are saying. It seems like you are saying the
>>>>> tokenizer doesn't work, so then it seems that the bayesian filter wouldn't be
>>>>> very good at all...
>>>>> Well, it's been 10 minutes since I read your idea of simply putting
>>>>> the bayesian filter at the end, and haven't come up with a reason why it
>>>>> won't work. So, probably good. Do you want to do it, or me?
>>>>> Jon Daley
>>>>> Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
>>>>> -- Oscar Wilde
>>>> Jon Daley
>>>> Music is what feelings sound like.
>>>> -- Anonymous
>>>> pLog-svn mailing list
>>>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>> pLog-svn mailing list
>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
Of course, we are all worms, but I like to think,
at least, that I am a glowworm.
-- Winston Churchill
More information about the pLog-svn