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

[Khalid Baheyeldin]

Xavier

Did you know that -dev releases are by definition a nightly build?
This means that they get refreshed daily with whatever content
is in the branch/tag that they are pointed to.

That is what they are, so no room for changing it.

As for enforcing stable releases, this is open source software, which
apart from what Victor said (ready when ready), it is maintained mostly
in the spare time of maintainers, so they handle the releases whichever
way they see fit/have time for.

With open source, you should not "enforce" anything beyond the very basics,
otherwise, you erect barriers, add more work, and discourage participation.

Yes, best practices says that we should do stable releases whenever
possible,
with branches, but all that is more work for the maintainers, and for some
who maintain a lot of modules, it is just not possible to do it across the
board.

A rant may not get the desired effect, but a discussion is good to have to
see
what is the range of opinions on the topic.

In the past, I have seen people request stable releases nicely in the issue
queue
and I have responded to a few of these positively, time permitting of
course.

On Feb 18, 2008 8:08 AM, 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
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Khalid M. Baheyeldin
2bits.com, Inc.
http://2bits.com
Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20080218/e7db17db/attachment-0001.htm