[development] Module developers, please do *proper* releases !
xavier.bestel at free.fr
Mon Feb 18 13:08:00 UTC 2008
Ready when ready, I agree with that. But two successive versions should
be called 5.x-1.(n) and 5.x-1.(n+1), with (n) and (n+1) being actual
numbers, not 5.x-1.x-dev and 5.x-1.x-dev.
Look at the video module for example: not a single 5.x stable release,
it went through numerous versions, all called 5.x-1.x-dev.
If you don't use the update module, you're screwed.
What does it cost to just change the *name* of the versions ?
PS: no offense to the video module devs, I could have picked others
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 09:31 -0200, Victor Kane wrote:
> Open source golden rule: ready when ready
> On Feb 18, 2008 9:12 AM, Ashraf Amayreh <mistknight at gmail.com> wrote:
> I really fail to see what a proposed change of process has
> anything to do with open source and closed source. As if it
> were the case that if we only allowed proper releases we're
> removing the "provided as is" flag or somehow going against
> open source concepts.
> On Feb 18, 2008 12:28 PM, Victor Kane <victorkane at gmail.com>
> Hey guys, this is an Open Source project (or was the
> last time I checked).
> So, releases get done when they are ready.
> It's really up to each module developer to decide when
> a stable release should be ready, since use is always
> on an "as is" basis.
> Obviously there may be irritating cases where there is
> a chronic "dev" release that "everyone uses"; but that
> has to be handled on a case by case basis, and usually
> via a good natured mail to the maintainer.
> Victor Kane
> On Feb 18, 2008 8:20 AM, Ashraf Amayreh
> <mistknight at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sometime I think this should become a
> requirement rather than something optional,
> all current dev releases could be promoted to
> a first release and new dev releases banned.
> Not sure how good an idea this is, but if dev
> releases are so unstable, then maybe they
> should remain unreleased until they are, and
> if they are stable, then there's no reason for
> them to be dev.
> On Feb 18, 2008 11:43 AM, Xavier Bestel
> <xavier.bestel at free.fr> wrote:
> I'm writing a little rant about
> modules. I know it's tempting when you
> start your module to call it a
> "development version", because it
> work so well yet or it's not finished.
> But many modules never leave that
> state, and e.g. now that the official
> Drupal version is 6.x and that
> version 5.x is just a bugfix release,
> there are still many modules with
> only a 5.x-1.x-dev release.
> There's also the case where you have a
> concurrent -dev and numbered
> release, but only the -dev release has
> the features and the bugfix to
> make it usable.
> This isn't just a cosmetic problem. As
> all releases have the same name,
> it's very inconvenient to store
> different versions, e.g. to go back in
> case of problem. Also it doesn't work
> so well with the update module
> (even if it tries to workaround that).
> So please, do proper releases. If you
> need to work on features, do a
> parallel 1.n and 2.n version, but
> avoid using -dev in code which should
> really be used.
> Ashraf Amayreh
> Ashraf Amayreh
More information about the development