[development] RFC: drupal as a moving target

Earl Miles merlin at logrus.com
Mon Apr 28 17:01:04 UTC 2008

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> The fact that Views and CCK (that actually are complex modules
> etc...) still need to be ported, the numbers I cited in the previous
> email etc... should be a sign that the policy should be adjusted.

No. No. NO. I am really, really tired of hearing this as a justification 
for whatever argument someone wants to make. It's bullshit.

And it's insulting. It's insulting to me personally.

If you've got a problem with Views not being ready for D6, come to me 
and ask me why. But do NOT, and I mean this seriously, DO NOT MAKE SOME 
ASSUMPTION and then go and use it as a basis for an argument, without at 
least CONFIRMING your assumption.

Here is the story:

Views 2 is not yet ready for D6 because I made a decision to rewrite the 
entire package at the same time as a major update. Knowing this, the 
authors of CCK made a similar decision to do some major reworking of the 

If I were simply porting Views to D6, it would've been done 3 months 
ago. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with Drupal or current 
Drupal policy. Any attempt to use it as an argument for policy (either 
current or future, on either side) is a CLEAR sign of total ignorance of 
the situation, and the rest of your argument is now questionable because 
you do not have a grasp of what is actually going on, and you insult the 
entire community with it.

More information about the development mailing list