[development] Is DRUPAL-5 branch necessary for module?
drupal at mclewin.com
Tue Jan 23 17:23:51 UTC 2007
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.
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
* 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. :)
More information about the development