[development] Module developers, please do *proper* releases !
owahab at gmail.com
Mon Feb 18 14:20:01 UTC 2008
On Feb 18, 2008 4:09 PM, Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel at free.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:30 +0200, Omar Abdel-Wahab wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 2008 3:08 PM, Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel at free.fr> wrote:
> > > 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
> > I still see this as an option.
> > We can not restrict or enforce a specific policy for module
> > maintainers to follow.
> > Once again, this is contributing. I code something and see it as
> > useful for others so I put it on d.o. It's not my responsibility that
> > someone doesn't see this as useful.
> Then don't release anything and just let your users pull from CVS.
> If it was me, I would ban unnumbered versions, and just add a tag 'dev
> release' to warn the users to stay to the previous stable release,
> unless they're adventurous.
Not everyone has CVS know-how. Probably this is why there's a cron job
on d.o. to grab a tar ball every now and then.
You can't ban someone who wants to help others. Some great modules
started as few lines of code someone saw as "useful".
Organizing things is one thing, putting too many restrictions is another.
> > One more thing: IMO, some developers only commit code when it's tested
> > thoroughly thus their -dev remains usable and production-ready almost
> > all the time while others may commit code to allow other
> > co-maintainers/users/developers to test.
> Fine, but how do I know which ones ? A -dev version is a -dev version,
> nothing tells me if it's stable or not, especially not the bug tracker
> because YOU CAN'T RECOGNIZE VERSIONS.
> > I see no point in enforcing some policy regarding contributions releases.
> Does that mean you wouldn't want to make life easier yo people who see
> that point ?
Let's agree upon something: none of us is trying to make others' lives
harder. It's a matter of ideas, you see that there *should* be a
policy while I see this as a optional or recommended practice (which
is the case now).
More information about the development