<!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">
This is beginning to sound of <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://drupal.org/node/311893">http://drupal.org/node/311893</a> (and other
related discussions). I like the idea of an 'incubator' repository,
that can be the jungle, and a 'mainstream' repository for golden
modules. The issue, however, has always been defining what those
modules would be. Top 20 modules? All modules with a number of usage
sites >= threshhold? Modules that have been vetted by developers
and/or end users?<br>
<br>
I think when we begin to have distributions becoming more of the norm,
this stuff will also work itself out a little better.<br>
<br>
Aaron<br>
<br>
Damien Tournoud wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:e821df550911180735n215f8042o8331ae1e4d6ea45b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Moshe Weitzman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:weitzman@tejasa.com"><weitzman@tejasa.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Perhaps we should ask them to check a checkbox "I agree to maintain this module".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As nice as it may be, this is simply unrealistic.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I think it is realistic and reasonable and prudent. IMO,
cvs.drupal.org is not a place for code that you want to share briefly
and forget about. or at least, lets segregate that out to something
other than contrib/modules.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This calls for the set up of an "incubator" repository, where modules
can mature and stabilize before getting into the "mainstream"
repository. Projects could be promoted from the incubator to the
mainstream repository via a review process.
After all, we have an handful of modules that are very heavily used
and can be considered as critical for the community, and a "long tail"
of more targeted, special-cased modules that forms the richness of the
community, but that don't have the same quality / support
requirements.
Between Views (the most used contributed module) and Admin Role (#100
contributed module), there is a 1/20 usage ratio. I think it would
make sense that those "high profile" modules (and other modules, the
usage is just a data point here, there are obviously other things to
consider) comply with higher standards, and be identified as such.
Damien Tournoud
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Aaron Winborn
Advomatic, LLC
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://advomatic.com/">http://advomatic.com/</a>
Drupal Multimedia available in September!
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.packtpub.com/create-multimedia-website-with-drupal/book">http://www.packtpub.com/create-multimedia-website-with-drupal/book</a>
My blog:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://aaronwinborn.com/">http://aaronwinborn.com/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>