-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gerhard Killesreiter schrieb:
Alex Barth schrieb:
On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Daniel F. Kudwien wrote:
Looks like we could try to do this without changing HEAD development at all - if Alex starts with OpenID and Aggregator 2.x branches in contrib, then anyone who wants to could do the same for the other optional core modules. Then if it works we could look at better infrastructure around it. No insults, but we don't really want to start wild forks of core modules with arbitrary maintainers and features in contrib. If we just do that, the quality of those forks won't differ from any other contrib module, and I would not see nor understand why those forks can't use a different module namespace (like any other module that thinks it can do better). I'd call it a backport. The same namespace makes it much easier to maintain the backport. The incentive for keeping the backport up to Drupal core standard is that its very reason-to-be is validating changes being made to HEAD and using these changes in the current release version.
Any 'fork' in contrib with the same name as a Drupal core module only worries me in so far as it's using up valuable namespace for exactly doing that.
I think that this would be rather confusing for joe average user and request that you leave the core namespaces alone.
Let me illustrate the "why". I am in the process of writing a slightly changed version of the dblog module. Most of the changes will be in the .install file. While I do think my changes are a good idea, others might disagree. It is one of the patches where Dries was more stubborn than me after all (http://drupal.org/node/78503, for the interested reader). Now, should I really call this dblog and use the 6--2 branch? Cheers, Gerhard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknuvTwACgkQfg6TFvELooRFqwCZAfNgHTy/c76CK12e1/WVQAC4 AVoAoJoM5w6gYUTAwfmmqlyapHgytC6x =4SxK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----