NYCPHP Meetup

[Mitch Pirtle]

inforequest wrote:

> Like most new ideas, this "code rating" one is grand. However, the 
> suggestion that NYPHP look over Mambo in detail is (IMHO) outstanding. 
> What better evaluation of the concept than a look at Mambo, which is 
> "looked at" by tons of people, has been winning praise, is under 
> active development.


I think the whole Mambo community would love this, as it helps everyone, 
both the developers and the community.  Having NYPHP do something like 
this could really start something, and definitely demonstrate the real 
strengths of the NYPHP organization as a whole.  We got a lot of serious 
cranium horsepower here (despite my involvement!), and this could be a 
very visible demonstration of the value of that resource.

> The only problem I see is the way Mambo has been updating. Sure we 
> need the security fixes, but so many small changes that don't seem to 
> have been important enough to change, but apparently support the 
> "bigger picture" that is 4.6 - it makes it had to commit if you can't 
> be sure about the next release.


Those problems were initially security patches that went to distribution 
before testing, resulting in patches of patches.  The development team 
is still smarting from that event (or, 'series of events'), so much so 
that they are seriously debating the validity of every single release.  
Live and learn :)

> I'd love to see NYPHP improve Mambo's speed...


5.0 has a completely different schema and content structure.  I can only 
promise that it will fly, and that the XML-RPC integration will enable 
rich client-side site management applications, maybe even in XUL   ;)

I am absolutely certain that the collective of NYPHP is capable of 
refining many aspects of the design of Mambo, and probably unearth some 
'unsolved mysteries' that have been indoctrinated as just historical 
anomalies...

I've learned a tremendous amount from working with Mambo, and would 
support any efforts that could benefit Mambo as well.

-- Mitch