[development] Some of core to contrib?

Gerhard Killesreiter gerhard at killesreiter.de
Wed Apr 22 06:46:20 UTC 2009

Hash: SHA1

Gerhard Killesreiter schrieb:
> Alex Barth schrieb:
>> On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Daniel F. Kudwien wrote:
>>>> Looks like we could try to do this without changing HEAD
>>>> development at all - if Alex starts with OpenID and
>>>> Aggregator 2.x branches in contrib, then anyone who wants to
>>>> could do the same for the other optional core modules. Then
>>>> if it works we could look at better infrastructure around it.
>>> No insults, but we don't really want to start wild forks of core modules
>>> with arbitrary maintainers and features in contrib.  If we just do
>>> that, the
>>> quality of those forks won't differ from any other contrib module, and I
>>> would not see nor understand why those forks can't use a different module
>>> namespace (like any other module that thinks it can do better).
>> I'd call it a backport. The same namespace makes it much easier to
>> maintain the backport. The incentive for keeping the backport up to
>> Drupal core standard is that its very reason-to-be is validating changes
>> being made to HEAD and using these changes in the current release version.
>> Any 'fork' in contrib with the same name as a Drupal core module only
>> worries me in so far as it's using up valuable namespace for exactly
>> doing that.
> I think that this would be rather confusing for joe average user and
> request that you leave the core namespaces alone.

Let me illustrate the "why".

I am in the process of writing a slightly changed version of the dblog
module. Most of the changes will be in the .install file.

While I do think my changes are a good idea, others might disagree. It
is one of the patches where Dries was more stubborn than me after all
(http://drupal.org/node/78503, for the interested reader).

Now, should I really call this dblog and use the 6--2 branch?

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the development mailing list