[development] Fwd: Drupal.org uprade: contributed module dependencies

[Gordon Heydon]

Hi,

Greg Knaddison wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 10:46 AM, Gordon Heydon <gordon at heydon.com.au> wrote:
> <snip stuff about developer motivations>
> 
>> ATM I feel that majority of the heavy lifting when it comes to coding is
>> still being done by a small group of people. I know the bar is being
>> lowered when it comes to developing for Drupal (developing != coding) as
>> it is a lot more point and click to get Drupal to do things.
> 
> Statistics show otherwise - each successive version of Drupal sees
> more people participating in the issue queue and more people
> contributing patches 4.7 saw 338 patch contributors while 5.0 saw 492
> patch contributors.  Drumm's presentation about "who uploaded the
> first attachment" to the core issue queue shows a concentration in
> small numbers of people (err...person...chx) but it also showed a
> really long tail.
> 
> See http://groups.drupal.org/node/6551 for more stastics.

Yes, but the heavy lifting, ie the deep dark and significant updates are
by the minority.

>> I think we need to find ways to get the coders working on the major
>> contributed modules like  views and cck (if we do not have these modules
>> at the release of Drupal 6 it will be very bad) working on getting the
>> Drupal 6 releases done.
> 
> That's largley up to the module maintainers and the people they can
> motivate to get involved.  CCK is actually reasonably close.  Views
> and Project are a bigger concern since they hold up Drupal.org and
> they are both actively seeking help (though not always getting it).

I know this is a problem in e-Commerce, but then again e-Commerce is not
one of the sexy modules like views or cck. Rallying people around those
modules is sometimes easier.

>> Maybe the Drupal Association needs to not only deal with the
>> infrastructure but maybe also look at bringing on some full time coders
>> whos job it is to not only code for Core, but also run around the edges
>> and bring some of the more important contributed modules up to the next
>> release.
> 
> AFAIK, that's against the bylaws. See
> http://association.drupal.org/about/introduction
> 
> It's a little confusing though since it says it can't direct "planning
> or development" but it could "Support development by awarding grants
> or paying wages."  Perhaps someone from the association could clarify
> that.  I'm not sure the association has funds to do this anyway.

Either way, this is something that if it needed to be could be changed
at the association level. It is not like it is written in stone.

>> We do need to make sure the major contributed modules are all go at the
>> time of the Drupal 6 release. I know myself that I couldn't deploy sites
>> without views and cck (I could but I don't want to go back to the dark
>> old days before views and cck) and there are most likely other modules
>> that people would consider show stoppers.
> 
> Certainly valid, but Drupal6 is still a moving target which makes work
> towards porting less valuable.  Many developers wait for an RC prior
> to working on their ports.  See http://groups.drupal.org/node/5036 for
> details on the status of many modules - many of which are updated.

hmm, maybe but I know in my case it is time to sit down and work on the
new version.

> And if I can hijack attention even further afield from the initial
> messages...one idea that might help contribs get updated faster is
> currently sitting with a bunch of +1 in the forums: "Developer
> releases -- release early, release often"
> http://drupal.org/node/190901

+1

hehe sometimes I think the +1 are more of a hindrance then a help. and
release early, release often is ok in theory, but it only allows for
evolutionary changes not revolutionary.

Gordon.

> Regards,
> Greg
>