Now that I'm less tired... :-) Actually, it's a little of neither. 1) HEAD is a moving target, for any module. That comes with the territory. 2) I've noticed that some modules will be updated for a new version, but not get tagged for it for some reason. Or maybe they're 90% updated and then, for whatever reason, the maintainer stops working on it so it's not really compatible with anything. 3) Given #2, if I see a module that has recent activity in HEAD but no 4.7 tag, I can't tell if that's because it's not fully updated for 4.7 yet or if it is but the maintainer is just lazy/busy/forgetful. 4) Some module descriptions say things like "right now it doesn't work yet" or "it now works with 4.6", but the module itself is 3 years old. There's no indication when "right now" is. Given #3 and #4, it's not always easy to tell a module's status unless. Solution: A) If you're going to put comments like "right now it needs some love" or other temporally-dependent comments into a project description, please *date them* so that we know when "right now" is. B) Status information ("Upgrade for version X in progress") is useful, but only if it's kept up to date and is accurate. Even "does not yet work with" is an important piece of information that can save people a lot of time, yet takes only seconds to add. C) There was a patch at one point to expose "last updated on" information about a node to the theme layer in addition to creation time. I don't recall if it ever got in, but that would be very helpful information to have as well. In all, it boils down to the need for good communication by the module author on what the status of the project is, beyond simply the existence of a tag. There's a lot that a module author can do in a matter of seconds with their module description to help improve that communication. That should be encouraged. -- Larry Garfield On Thu, September 14, 2006 8:58 am, Khalid B said:
Is your point about the temporal nature of what HEAD is? Or about someone tagging the module for a version while it is not yet converted to the version?
HEAD by definition is a moving target. It means different things at different times. For example, in April, it was 4.7, now it means 5.0.
So, in any commit, when it says "HEAD" it means "HEAD at the time of the commit whatever it may be".
Another problem is that we often don't know if the next release will be an x+1.0 or x.y+1, so we can't say "ported for 5.0" before Dries makes that decision. This is another case where code names for future releases will help.
As for people tagging the module before it is ported, this should not be happening and I can add a point on it.
On 9/14/06, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 22:15, Khalid B wrote:
Here is the updated list based on the comments above:
I just thought of another one while browsing the module list right now...
If you have status information in the module's description ("is being updated for 4.7", "is not yet ready for prime time", "has now been updated for...", etc.) for the love of Dries date it! A module that says in its description:
"It is not yet ready for 4.6, nor for HEAD. Allthough It does work, it still needs a lot of love ad time. So you can help."
yet has a 4.6 tag and a last update in CVS of sometime over the summer leaves me scratching my head as to wtf its actual status is. Yes, this is an actual example I just saw that prompted me to write this email, but I've seen it a great deal.
Related to that, make sure you tag a release in a timely fashion. If a module is tagged for 4.6 but not 4.7, but has lots of recent activity in the HEAD branch, does that mean that the 4.7 version doesn't work yet? That the latest CVS snapshot is 4.7-friendly but the developer is just lazy? That it skipped 4.7 completely and the CVS version is now partially converted to 5.0?
Inquiring module-users want to know!
OK, this is something of a rant, but I do consider proper maintenance of a project's page and release tags to be basic responsibility. Someone who's not tired and frazzled at the moment, please translate that into good documentation. :-)
-- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson