[development] CVS branch work best practices?
merlin at logrus.com
Fri Feb 2 19:09:27 UTC 2007
Moshe Weitzman wrote:
>> 1) Your target audience is very very small. Comparatively, only a
>> handfull of developers will be using HEAD, and they'll be developing
>> with it, not using contrib modules.
> Why bother convincing Contrib maintainers that tracking core HEAD is a
> bad idea? If you don't like it, don't do it.
There is a disconnect between:
We recommend you do this (Dries' position recommending A)
If you don't like it, don't do it.
> Some people actually do track HEAD and I am very thankful for them. In
> particular, these people actually use the APIs that are being dreamed up
> in HEAD. This fixes bugs and refines APIs *before* the code freeze. For
> example, og converted to using the node arbitrator stuff during the
> release cycle and as a result a few improvements were made before freeze.
This isn't how I feel most contrib authors are likely to operate. Contrib
authors who are very close to core and interact regularly with the core
developers and have a good feel for the patches that are going in can do this.
But I think it's unrealistic to recommend that most contrib developers do this.
And there are some cases like the node_access stuff where we do need modules to
actually utilize the API, but bear in mind the burden that puts on the module
developer. Also, what you describe isn't *actually* option a. Option a suggests
you have basically stopped development on the previous version of the module
before the next version of Drupal is even available. It's *this* that I'm
arguing against. That is a bad practice that, in the 4.7 cycle, left a lot of
people in a limbo of seeing new features that they couldn't use.
More information about the development