[development] RFC: drupal as a moving target
sepeck at gmail.com
Tue Apr 29 16:38:13 UTC 2008
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
<mail at webthatworks.it> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:35:35 -0700
> "Steven Peck" <sepeck at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And I don't think anyone is willing to scare off someone that is
> > > going to write a 10K line module just because he doesn't get
> > > involved in core dev. And anyway it seems that core decisions are
> > > made among a 10-20 people.
> > See now, what is this? This is one of those 'what if' emotional
> > blackmail/threat things that are false justifications for arguments.
> > What if someone... was willing to save us if we did as we were told?
> > What if someone... would invest in Drupal if only we gave up
> > 'something' or change 'something else'
> This is not a black mail. I already made a 8000+ line investment in
> Drupal, I hope it will be out of the gates in the coming weeks.
Sure it is. You brought it up as an example with the implied I will
take my toys and go home and that people would blink. I realize you
may not have thought of it that way when you wrote it but it did read
that way and is a common argument/justification for a given position.
It's probably a pretty cool module. It's probably really important to
people and will be a valuable to various people in the community.
It's also not relevant to core if you are not participating in the
development/direction of core.
I am the documentation coordinator and I contribute a lot of docs, but
if I disappeared tomorrow someone else would step up and fill the gap.
And the changes to core really have an impact on documentation. A
big one. :)
> I still think that it would be a good thing the more Drupal get
> mature the less contrib modules have to be involved in core.
> Earls is the author of 2 important modules that actually would take
> great advantage from core changes. Other modules may prefer
> I've heard you already made some pool and that the idea of keeping
> Drupal API so fluid is still welcome. Still this topic resurface
Sure, new people come in all the time and though we tell people and
have this nice article and everything there is so much to take in that
people often don't really understand the full implications that it
means to a code/sites life cycle. The eventual realization often
comes as a shock. You seem to be at that point now.
As to getting more in core vs less in core, I am neutral on that. As
long as I can accomplish what I need, I am content and will let those
advocates of the various approaches submit the patches and carry the
work forward on those issues important to them. I just care that it
works in a sane way.
> May I say that the 5.X -> 6.X -> 7.0 looks like a rough path at least
> for me?
> That anyone that has no time to send more than a few patches to core
> since he is busy to write a 10K line module has no words on core dev
> life cycle?
Not really. If you are not involved, then you don't get a vote or
influence. Really. There are times in the 4.7 -> 5.x cycle and also
the 5.x -> 6.x where I did not have time to pay attention to the issue
queue and as a result core module behavior and/or other decisions were
made that I did not like/agree with. That's all right, they worked
out but because I did not have time to be involved, I did not get to
vote in those cases. People did not stop and send me an email to
solicit my opinion on things, they discussed and arrived at a
An example, there is a proposal for D7 that I disagreed with and
stated my objections, so the thread is quiet now but I am aware that
some people want to remove a function out of core that I think needs
to stay for now. I will not be the final one to decide, but I have
input because I am present in the discussion. If I was not, perhaps
those wanting removal would prevail without my counter arguments.
NOTE: I did not say patches, I said involvement. I don't send in
patches and I am involved.
It doesn't take that much work to pay attention to the issue tracker
and trends. It doesn't take that much time to occasionally pull
something down and test it. And that time you spend is so infinitely
valuable and results in some seriously important dividends. It gets
another set of eyes on code/changes. It gets another perspective. It
gets you reputation and karma in the community. It gets you advance
knowledge and the ability to influence the direction of core in ways
that can simplify your future maintenance work on your modules.
The cost is time. And we return to; "Open Source doesn't cost less,
it costs different."
> If we just vote with our direct contribution. Once I'll finish my
> module I'll vote with my non contribution and switch to something
> else since if you insist in this wall against wall and calling names,
> it doesn't look the place where I can make long term investments.
See now we return to 'take my toys elsewhere subtext'. If you decide
to work/contribute to a different project then that's what you decide
to do. It would be unfortunate, but it's also a natural life cycle
behavior thing too.
And excuse you? I do not believe I called you names in any of the
emails I sent and am seriously annoyed at your implication that I did
We are having a discussion. One where I disagree with you but a
discussion none the less. We can arrive at a final point where we
disagree with each other and still continue to work on the same
> Again... I know there are people in core that know how to write code
> and how to design it. I know there are people that have the right
> skill to understand software management and planning.
> Even Dries wrote *at present time*... when did he wrote that? 2 years
> ago? more than 2 years ago?
How is it still not relevant or true today? Drupal is more that seven
years old and still following it's founding principals and mission.
As it has gained in complexity it has slowed down in releases but that
is a sign of it's maturity and the larger number and nature of
contributors. There are also a lot of new and relevant technologies
still out there that people are wanting to integrate into Drupal. The
web is not yet mature.
> As a contrib developer and occasional contributor to drupal code I'm
> expressing my need to lower that percentage and I feel that my need
> is in line with the reached maturity of Drupal.
> I don't think it is not in line with natural life cycle of any
> project getting more mature and I don't think I'm an isolated case.
It is slowing down, just doesn't seem to be slow enough to address
> Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
More information about the development