[development] {Short issue queues need care - 7} Why we shouldn't close all issues without proper review.

Gary Feldman dpal_gaf_devel at marsdome.com
Thu Sep 7 00:15:08 UTC 2006

Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Gary Feldman wrote:
>> Augustin (Beginner) wrote:
>>> (Queue #3) CVS critical bugs:
>> Every time I even think about searching these lists, looking for 
>> something within my ability to tackle, I stumble right here.  Why is 
>> Drupal concerned with bugs in the CVS project? :-)
>> Does this really mean trunk?  (Not HEAD, either, since HEAD is a tag, 
>> not a branch.)  If so, can it be changed?  If not, then what does it 
>> mean?
> Gary, "CVS" and "HEAD" versions generally refer to what other projects 
> call "trunk", the very latest development version. But it seems you 
> don't need to be told. What is your request? To clear up the terminology?
Yes, that's precisely my request. 

I used CVS for years before switching to Subversion, and have never 
before seen "CVS" used to refer to the main (trunk) branch.  I have seen 
it used in the sense of "get the version from CVS instead of downloading 
a particular release tarball," which is only meaningful if no branching 
is being done.  But as long as development is being done on multiple 
branches, they're all in CVS.  It's a similar story for HEAD, except 
that Subversion usage adds some more twists.

I suppose that if I did nothing else but Drupal, I'd get used to it and 
wouldn't mind the usage, but I do lots of other stuff.  So every time I 
see this, I have to go back to the earlier listings in the note before I 
realize what I think is meant.  I wasn't 100% positive - it could just 
as easily and reasonably be bugs detected in 4.6, 4.7, or the CVS trunk 
respectively, with the intent of only fixing in the trunk. 

Now if I trip over it, being experienced with CVS, what happens to 
people who want to get involved but have never used any source control 
system?  I'll admit to being a bit of a curmudgeon around terminology 
and usability, and I'm assuming the actual work in changing the term is 
trivial.  If it isn't, then that's a fair response, but if it is, then 
yes, I'd like to see a less ambiguous term used here.


More information about the development mailing list