<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
It's already difficult enough for user-administrators to keep track of
what module versions to install, when a module is dependent on another.
I am personally glad that Earl coincided the release of Views 2 with
the port to 6. I would not want to have to maintain yet another version
of my Views-dependent modules. Imagine the nightmare of Views-1 for d6,
Views-2 for d6, Views-Wonder-Widgets-1 depending on Views-1 for d6,
Views-Wonder-Widgets-2 for the Views-2 branch of d6, etc. In addition
to the Drupal & PHP version attributes of info files, we'd need to
track what version of a dependent module we needed as well. (We already
have had a share of this with CCK in d5, come to think of it, and that
was hard enough to figure out.)<br>
<br>
Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:48174D93.60204@killesreiter.de" type="cite"><!---->
<pre wrap="">Maybe we could introduce a code of conduct for contrib authors to not
do major overhauls when a new version is due. Ie if I maintain a
module for D6 and D7 comes out, I port it straight away to a D7-1
version and then start a rewrite as D7-2.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>