[development] Modules page rework

Chris Johnson chris at tinpixel.com
Sun Jul 30 03:23:46 UTC 2006

Earl Miles wrote:
> Morbus Iff wrote:

> I'd never really thought about simply hiding the required modules
> entirely. I'm not sure that's completely a good idea, but I'm not
> against it, either. What are other opinions?

Hiding required modules (if they are really, REALLY required) seems like a 
good idea to me.

>> * The version number is irrelevant and useless for a huge number of
>> reasons.

> This is a step toward allowing contrib to *have* version numbers. And
> no, I'm not using version to mean compatibility, it's just that core
> modules are going to have all the same version numbers. But as I said,
> what a contrib module puts there *is arbitrarily set by the author*. So
> even without the nice product release system, at least with this a
> module author can set a version number in a module's release, and when
> some commits go in, increase the version number. Now, when bug reports
> are filed, the module version number can be reported. Please, tell me
> again this is a bad thing.

I cannot disagree with Morbus any more vehemently.  I've been trying to get 
some kind of version identification feature for modules for over 2 years.  I 
waste way the hell too much time trying to remember wtf version of a site and 
contrib modules I'm running on a site that I administer from time to time. 
Having it all listed on the modules page is fantastic and will save me lots of 
time and headaches in the future.  (And yes, we need contrib modules to have 
version numbers.)


More information about the development mailing list