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

[Nancy Wichmann]

Xavier Bestel wrote:
> 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.

While I would like to see a number of guidelines produced (and would be
happy to help) to "govern" contributed modules, I have to agree that an
enforced rule set would probably result in at least half of the contributed
modules and most of the themes going away.

"Two successive versions should ... not 5.x-1.x-dev and 5.x-1.x-dev."
Well, my thought here is that those are NOT two successive versions.  If it
does not take on an official release number, then it is only one version.

When I fix bugs or add small features to one of my modules, I do not produce
an official release until I believe the changes accumulate to a sufficient
update and are reasonably stable to call an official release.

I had one module that I became a co-maintainer of and for which I messed up
CVS.  As a result, I was forced to produce several official releases in a
short time period (6 rel's in two weeks) and had users complaining. So
releases can be a two-edged sword; it's a fine line.

And Update Status is part of this balancing act.  With it running, the admin
is being notified every time, or worse, some junior admin sees the messages
and panics.  Further, many of us build/maintain sites for others and the
people who are paying us to do that don't want to spend the money to have a
nicely functioning module replaced every few weeks (this is why I don't
usually put US on live sites).

Nancy E. Wichmann, PMP