[development] Module developers, please do *proper* releases !

[Xavier Bestel]

So ?
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 ?

	Xav

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>
>         wrote:
>                 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.
>                 
>                 saludos,
>                 
>                 Victor Kane
>                 http://awebfactory.com.ar
>                 
>                 
>                 
>                 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:
>                                 Hi,
>                                 
>                                 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
>                                 doesn't
>                                 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.
>                                 
>                                 Thanks,
>                                 
>                                        Xav
>                                 
>                                 
>                         
>                         
>                         
>                         
>                         -- 
>                         Ashraf Amayreh
>                         http://blogs.aamayreh.org
>                 
>                 
>         
>         
>         
>         -- 
>         Ashraf Amayreh
>         http://blogs.aamayreh.org
>