Jump to:
| Project: | Privatemsg |
| Version: | 6.x-1.x-dev |
| Component: | User interface |
| Category: | support request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | closed (fixed) |
Issue Summary
Hello all,
the new tagging system may be very nice for some, but it obviously "flawed" in so many ways it is unusable to many others. The _global_ labels (really?), the missing _sender_ or _participants_ column in the list, the lack of folders or any other archiving system, the poor migration of 5.x folders, are some of the issues that sping to mind.
I am not a contributor, so I can't complain and I wish the best of luck to the designers and users of this new hotness. However, I do need to find quickly an alternative for my existing and future projects. So, is there an alternative? Something that works like privatemsg 5.x?
If not, I can offer of €200 for porting the privatemsg _classic_ to Drupal 6. More if needed, I'm listening. If there are others in need, don't be shy, add to the bounty.
Thanks.
Comments
#1
Just to be sure, i hope you tried the 6.x-1.x-dev version and not 2.x. For your other concerns please create a list of your *perfect* user experience with privatemsg. We listen very closely to our user's needs and act accordintly. Without proper feedback we obviously are not able to satisfy anyone. so... Please list each feature you require, one by one, and how you like to experience it (please dont simply say *what ever d5 was like* as that will not be very constructure).
Awaiting your responce. Cheers.
#2
I too have a similar sentiment. Having sat on the sidelines watching the privatemsg module development, I've wondered the same thing. With all the flurry of new features being added to the Drupal 6 version of privatemsg, I've come to fear that the module may never be finished, even as other modules are gearing up for Drupal 7. It feels like the scope of the Drupal 6 version has gone well beyond what the module was originally intended to do. It seems that a more direct port should have been completely finished first, with additional functionality added afterwards.
I think Gabrial meant that he wanted what the Drupal 5 version had, a way for users to send threaded private messages to one another (and probably interact with the User Relationships module and a few others). This is especially important for sites that use Drupal for social networking. I would think that some of the new features aren't really that big priority for most sites, such as the attachments for privatemsgs. Privatemsg for most sites doesn't need to be a fullfledged email client like Gmail, but simple private messages.
As someone who is waiting for privatemsg 6.x to be finished in order to upgrade from 5.x (as all the other modules are basically ready), I'd think a lot of users would want to know when the port to 6.x would likely be finished (a ballpark figure). After all, a beta version or dev build isn't really appropriate for a live site, which is why having a finalized version is so important.
#3
I'd think a lot of users would want to know when the port to 6.x would likely be finished (a ballpark figure).To connect with my post above, it is impossible to give any kind of estimates until module's users speakup concretely what features they want. So far module development path have been shaped by people that use it and speak up how they want it to work. The fact that it have been developing differently from how others may expect/want is no one's but their own fault. But i do not intend to blame, that is not my intent. My intention is to make you understand that it is important you speak up and shape the future of this module. the.alphy hank you for mentioning some specifics such as working with user relationships module, that is a good specific feature to mention. Continue wollowing your own example to write out a more complete list of features privatemsg requires in your opinion.
#4
I notice that a lot of other modules/maintainers are able to give a good outline/roadmap and timeframe. Those that make a module should not solely rely on user input, but have some kind of basic gameplan for the direction of their own module. The 5.x version had good functionality, don't you know what features your own module had? Many of the silent people want a finished port of 5.x to 6.x, not a million new features. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that. I know it's been six months since RC2, and from an outsider's perspective, little progress seems to have been made towards finalizing the module.
Example of Basic Functionality:
* send, receive, and delete private messages on a site
* threaded conversations
* e-mail notifications of new messages
* integration with forums, user relations, etc. (i.e. all the modules that 5.x integrated with)
5.x did all of these things. These are the features that should be in a non-beta version of 6.x already.
These features are extras that should be done later and aren't as important:
* tagging and filtering (this module isn't gmail or yahoo mail, it's PM on a website)
* search private messages (this is a neat addition, but not mission critical for a final version)
* attachments (again, this isn't gmail)
All these extra features should be worried about after 6.x-1.0 is finalized and out of beta or added into a 6.x-2.0 release or 7.x version. It just feels like things haven't been prioritized very well. There needs to be an ordered, organized plan for how to get a final version of this module out, which doesn't seem to be happening.
I'm happy to give input and help create an outline for what needs to be included and not included in a stable, 6.x-1.0 release. I'm not trying to offend anyone, as I know a lot of hard work is being put into this module. I just think, as a critical module to a lot of sites, this module needs a specific, focused set of objectives to get it moving and finalized.
#5
This module has changed hands at least once, possibly more times.
I haven't ported my site to D6, yet, but I have to concur with making it work first and then add features. When I started work on Advanced Forum, I had big plans and wasn't going to make a final release until I got there. 1.5 years later, I realized I needed to wrap up what I had and work on the rest in a new branch. So I can understand the perspective of wanting to do everything before 1.x and releasing a "done" module, but, as a user, I can understand just wanting something that works and getting the bells and whistles later.
Michelle
#6
We obviously have that since the module started.
We have that too, and with the -dev release, that will soon become rc3, you can also operate on (multiple) threads, meaning, deleting, tagging, marking as read and so on.
That is also part of the current -dev release.
We have integration with advanced forum and are working on more.
As you can see, from your list, the only missing thing is user relations integration. I fully agree with you that the development of this module is sometimes rather slow and our release cycles are far from being perfect, we are working on that. Currently, there are only two issues (#372201-42: Roadmap for official 1.0 release) that block a rc3 release.
Actually, this is necessary. It is necessary to provide a upgrade path for privatemsg 5.x.
#7
For the simplest of cases, RC2 was "feature complete". It worked and still does.
And yes, it needed tagging as - Berdir said - to provide an upgrade path.
Since then, yes, there has been a lot of refactoring, adding features etc. Hopefully we are not far from completing that step now too. From the link provided by Berdir, we are two commits away from an rc3.
As for integration with user relationships - what exactly is required? there was a code snippet out there allowing for the autocomplete to be limited to relationships, but what else can privatemsg do as a concrete step?
#8
I might be talking out of the wrong end, here, since I havent' actually tried to see what it already does. But what I think would be useful is a way to limit so only folks that have a relationship with you via UR are allowed to PM you. Might want to restrict it to two way relationships as well, or simply allow the site admin to pick which relationship to use for that.
Michelle
#9
We provide a hook that allows to implement blocking. There is also a example implementation of that hook at http://drupal.org/node/373044, that should work for every module that supports http://drupal.org/project/drupal_universal_relation_api.
I doubt that we will add that to privatemsg.module in the current form, because it does not allow to configure it. Some sites might not want to block messages between non-friends, facebook is not doing it either, for example.
However, if someone is interested to convert that into a working sub-module that allows to configure that blocking, I'm glad to help. I will not do it, because don't have a site that does use a friendlist/user relation module.
#10
Yeah, that would definitely need to be configurable, both by the site admin and by the users themselves. I don't have any immediate need for such a thing, but might down the road if no one gets to it first.
Michelle
#11
I discovered the task #442108: Add alternative Folder-like system. The bounty applies to that one as well.
#12
The folder like system is being discussed in the other issue and now RC3 is out too. Everybody can rejoice.
I think this issue can be closed now as even the bounty is for the other issue.
#13