Earl Miles wrote:
Earnie Boyd wrote:
Please branch and tag appropriately. IMO this falls under the guidelines for a responsible maintainer of a contributed module.
Enh. I disagree here. Actually rather a lot. If being responsible means doubling my workload so you can be lazy with CVS, then really I'm ok with you not having access to my software. Earl,
This is not being lazy with CVS, nor does maintaining two branches literally double ones workload as a developer - I recognize you were making a point though. When it comes to maintaining branches, for as long as HEAD and DRUPAL-X are identical, do your work in HEAD. As and when enough new changes are in HEAD that also belong in DRUPAL-X, copy those files into the directory where you keep a checked out copy of the X compatible version of your module and commit. That's not double the work. Once HEAD and DRUPAL-X diverge, then it is double the work. But they diverged, so you would have branched anyway. I agree with Earnie in how somebody new would approach CVS. Even a seasoned Drupal developer benefits from an explicit branch. I use CVS to keep track of updates on my sites. When a given contrib module uses HEAD for the version that is compatible with the version of Drupal I'm using, it imposes an overhead on me. I cannot just run cvs up and have faith in the result*. I need to study each and every change to see if this change is 'the one' where the module ceases to be Drupal-x compatible and is now Drupal x+1 compatible. HEAD has no compatibility contract, and should not. That's what DRUPAL-X branches are for. I see the DRUPAL-X branch as an important element of a released contributed module/theme. Scott * I recognize that even with strict use of branches I should still assess and test deltas before putting them in production. Ignore that for a moment, I get to exaggerate/simplify to make points too. :)