Xavier<br><br>Did you know that -dev releases are by definition a nightly build?<br>This means that they get refreshed daily with whatever content<br>is in the branch/tag that they are pointed to.<br><br>That is what they are, so no room for changing it.<br>
<br>As for enforcing stable releases, this is open source software, which <br>apart from what Victor said (ready when ready), it is maintained mostly<br>in the spare time of maintainers, so they handle the releases whichever <br>
way they see fit/have time for. <br><br>With open source, you should not "enforce" anything beyond the very basics, <br>otherwise, you erect barriers, add more work, and discourage participation.<br><br>Yes, best practices says that we should do stable releases whenever possible,<br>
with branches, but all that is more work for the maintainers, and for some<br>who maintain a lot of modules, it is just not possible to do it across the board.<br><br>A rant may not get the desired effect, but a discussion is good to have to see <br>
what is the range of opinions on the topic.<br><br>In the past, I have seen people request stable releases nicely in the issue queue<br>and I have responded to a few of these positively, time permitting of course. <br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 18, 2008 8:08 AM, Xavier Bestel <<a href="mailto:xavier.bestel@free.fr">xavier.bestel@free.fr</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
So ?<br>Ready when ready, I agree with that. But two successive versions should<br>be called 5.x-1.(n) and 5.x-1.(n+1), with (n) and (n+1) being actual<br>numbers, not 5.x-1.x-dev and 5.x-1.x-dev.<br><br>Look at the video module for example: not a single 5.x stable release,<br>
it went through numerous versions, all called 5.x-1.x-dev.<br>If you don't use the update module, you're screwed.<br><br>What does it cost to just change the *name* of the versions ?<br><br> Xav<br><br>PS: no offense to the video module devs, I could have picked others<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 09:31 -0200, Victor Kane wrote:<br>> Open source golden rule: ready when ready<br>><br>><br>> On Feb 18, 2008 9:12 AM, Ashraf Amayreh <<a href="mailto:mistknight@gmail.com">mistknight@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I really fail to see what a proposed change of process has<br>> anything to do with open source and closed source. As if it<br>> were the case that if we only allowed proper releases we're<br>
> removing the "provided as is" flag or somehow going against<br>> open source concepts.<br>><br>><br>><br>> On Feb 18, 2008 12:28 PM, Victor Kane <<a href="mailto:victorkane@gmail.com">victorkane@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>> Hey guys, this is an Open Source project (or was the<br>> last time I checked).<br>><br>> So, releases get done when they are ready.<br>
><br>> It's really up to each module developer to decide when<br>> a stable release should be ready, since use is always<br>> on an "as is" basis.<br>
><br>> Obviously there may be irritating cases where there is<br>> a chronic "dev" release that "everyone uses"; but that<br>> has to be handled on a case by case basis, and usually<br>
> via a good natured mail to the maintainer.<br>><br>> saludos,<br>><br>> Victor Kane<br>> <a href="http://awebfactory.com.ar" target="_blank">http://awebfactory.com.ar</a><br>
><br>><br>><br>> On Feb 18, 2008 8:20 AM, Ashraf Amayreh<br>> <<a href="mailto:mistknight@gmail.com">mistknight@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Sometime I think this should become a<br>
> requirement rather than something optional,<br>> all current dev releases could be promoted to<br>> a first release and new dev releases banned.<br>
><br>> Not sure how good an idea this is, but if dev<br>> releases are so unstable, then maybe they<br>> should remain unreleased until they are, and<br>
> if they are stable, then there's no reason for<br>> them to be dev.<br>><br>><br>><br>> On Feb 18, 2008 11:43 AM, Xavier Bestel<br>
> <<a href="mailto:xavier.bestel@free.fr">xavier.bestel@free.fr</a>> wrote:<br>> Hi,<br>><br>> I'm writing a little rant about<br>
> modules. I know it's tempting when you<br>> start your module to call it a<br>> "development version", because it<br>
> doesn't<br>> work so well yet or it's not finished.<br>> But many modules never leave that<br>> state, and e.g. now that the official<br>
> Drupal version is 6.x and that<br>> version 5.x is just a bugfix release,<br>> there are still many modules with<br>
> only a 5.x-1.x-dev release.<br>><br>> There's also the case where you have a<br>> concurrent -dev and numbered<br>
> release, but only the -dev release has<br>> the features and the bugfix to<br>> make it usable.<br>><br>> This isn't just a cosmetic problem. As<br>
> all releases have the same name,<br>> it's very inconvenient to store<br>> different versions, e.g. to go back in<br>
> case of problem. Also it doesn't work<br>> so well with the update module<br>> (even if it tries to workaround that).<br>
><br>> So please, do proper releases. If you<br>> need to work on features, do a<br>> parallel 1.n and 2.n version, but<br>
> avoid using -dev in code which should<br>> really be used.<br>><br>> Thanks,<br>><br>> Xav<br>
><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> Ashraf Amayreh<br>> <a href="http://blogs.aamayreh.org" target="_blank">http://blogs.aamayreh.org</a><br>
><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> Ashraf Amayreh<br>> <a href="http://blogs.aamayreh.org" target="_blank">http://blogs.aamayreh.org</a><br>><br><br><br></div></div></blockquote>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Khalid M. Baheyeldin<br><a href="http://2bits.com">2bits.com</a>, Inc.<br><a href="http://2bits.com">http://2bits.com</a><br>Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.