[development] RFC: Candidate 'premium' modules
gerhard at killesreiter.de
Mon May 15 12:02:41 UTC 2006
Dries Buytaert wrote:
> On 16 May 2006, at 03:26, James Walker wrote:
>>> a) release-critical - A new version of Drupal cannot be released
>>> unless these are up-to-date.
>>> b) quality controlled - these will be 'core modules' in all but name.
>>> c) well maintained - HEAD, current release and previous release should
>>> all be maintained preferably by a number of maintainers.
>> How do we keep track of which these are? Who decides? trackback, e.g.
>> is afaik currently unmaintained... etc.
>> I do, however, think that somehow giving folks an idea of which
>> modules are worth trying before others is a good one. But this sounds
>> like a sticky situation at best... tread lightly.
> We've discussed this a dozen times -- like most of the things we're
> talking about nowadays. We'll use "usage patterns" to determine what
> the important modules are. Automatically sorting modules by
> popularity is something we're working on. Clearly, this will save us
> a lot of trouble. ;)
This should be relatively easy now that we have dedicated downloads
stats or modules.
Currently, the chart is as follows:
Three conclusions: 4.6 isn't all that popular anymore (or rather: people
who have it won't need to download it anymore, new people chose 4.7).
Niftyness/graphical stuff is high on the agenda, and: Why are there so
few German developers when the de translation is so popular?
More information about the development