[development] CVS Approval Policy: was Re: new features in D6 core?
pierre.rineau at makina-corpus.com
Thu Nov 19 12:57:28 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 12:06 -0500, Shai Gluskin wrote:
> 1. Issue queue, issue queue, issue queue. The issue queue is the
> window into a module. By studying the issue queue for less
> than 5 minutes (sometimes 20 seconds) you can determine the
> quality of maintenance and the level of current activity in
> terms of new features and future development. We need to be
> more explicit in our docs about teaching new people just how
> to study the issue queue to make these evaluations.
> 2. Advertise the module feed: We need to better advertise the
> module feed (http://drupal.org/taxonomy/term/14/0/feed). Why
> isn't it on the module pages at d.o.? Getting more people to
> subscribe will help nip problems early if there is clear
> overlap. It also helps people get people interested in modules
> and can help develop collaborations etc.
> 3. Move dev list to g.d.o. The dev list is important. And people
> should be encouraged, but not required, to run ideas by this
> list. But I've got problems with this list. Why hasn't this
> list been replaced by a group at groups.drupal.org? Try doing
> a Google search and limiting your results to:
> http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/. It's pathetic.
> I don't know what the problem is. But I don't think it is
> worth fixing other than migrating to g.d.o. I don't think this
> list should be a requirement for anything. We aren't eating
> our own dog food on this list.
> 4. More stats: The relatively new usage stats at d.o. are
> awesome. They provide a nice resource for people evaluating
> modules. Lets develop some other stats as well. Here is one
> that I've thought about: Output a percent which is the number
> of posts and commits in a queue by maintainers divided by the
> total number of posts on the queue within the last year. It
> could give a quick sense to folks about the level of
> participation of the maintainer(s). A stat like that couldn't
> be used alone to make an evaluation, but in conjunction with
> other information, it could help. I think there is a lot of
> data that is sitting on d.o. that we are not leveraging. I'm
> in favor of developing more stats, which maintain themselves,
> rather than having some "core group" make evaluations.
Totally agree with points 1, 2 and 4.
More information about the development