On 2/15/07, Boris Mann <boris@bryght.com> wrote:
On 2/15/07, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
I really do not like the idea of different and conflicting versions of the same project being maintained in different releases by different teams.
You mean kind of like Drupal core is today?
Not quite a correct analogy. The Drupal core team does not "fork" Drupal in different directions, and the version numbers indicate features + API compatibility. Someone who was using tinymce 4.7 and happens to upgrade to tinymce 5.x-1.x will get a big surprise over 5.x-1.1 for example. The migration path may be totally broken.
Either moxie becomes what tinymce was, and let drupal-id.com do his his
thing with what is now tinymce and tinymce plus, or we talk him into focusing on one or the other of those latter two.
Did I mention Drupal-ID is out of the equation? In the end, there can be only one (/cue Highlander theme music).
Can't remember the music on that one, but Sir Sean was awesome. But, if drupal-id.com is out (I assume "out" means you guys leave him a sandbox on 5.x-1.x, and go with 5.x-2.x), then what is the fuss about? He can still commit to your branch if he wants to, unless he is banned, and I don't think we want to that (at least not now).
This forking of the same project by release will only confuse users and will
be a support nightmare.
But that's our problem as maintainers, not yours. Forking by project is probably worse.
What about the users who will download tinymce. Note to other potential commenters: unless you are signing up to help
maintain TinyMCE, it's Allie, myself, Steve, and Kevin hashing this out (publicly, no less :P).
Sorry for interfering, but I am concerned about features and upgrade path from older tinymce versions, and about user confusion. Should I hold off commenting until the team has a plan? Feel free to correct the misconceptions I (or others) have. -- 2bits.com http://2bits.com Drupal development, customization and consulting.