Solve Media CAPTCHA

Hi. Please read all the following and the links provided as this is very important information about your CVS Application:

Drupal.org has moved from CVS to Git! This is a very significant change for the Drupal community and for your application. Please read the following documentation on how this affects and benefits you and the application process:
Migrating from CVS Applications to (Git) Full Project Applications

• The status of this application will be put to "postponed" and by following the instructions in the above link, you will be able to reopen it.
• Or if your application has been "needs work" for more than 5 weeks, your application will be marked as "closed (won't fix)". You can still reopen it, by reading the instructions above.

Subscribing...

I didn't try running the module, I just looked it over for common errors.

Third-party code like solvemedialib.php should not be put in the repository, and should not be included with your module. Instead, you should have a README.txt or INSTALL.txt which tells the user where to download the needed library and how to install it.

Your repository shouldn't have a LICESNSE.txt

Your system variables all begin with "adcopy_". They should instead be using your module name "solvemedia_".

Please install and run the Coder module on your code. I only found a few minor problems with coding standards; Coder will catch most of these. Also read http://drupal.org/coding-standards, which covers some things that Coder doesn't find.

Drupal 5 is no longer supported, so you don't have to support a D5 version of this module unless you really want to.

In your .module, I suggest moving the jQuery code into its own file and loading it with drupal_add_js(). It will be more supportable and readable that way. Also read the coding standards for how to make your JS compatible with JS libraries other than jQuery - basically all you need to do is wrap it like this: (function ($) { /* Your code goes here */ }) (jQuery);

About the third party library issue, please read this:
http://drupal.org/node/422996

There are some cases where you are allowed to ship 3rd party stuff.

If you won't, check out the Libraries API module: http://drupal.org/project/libraries
It's really useful and is being used by a LOT of modules out there.

@Fidelix: I'm familiar with the policy. None of the stated exceptions apply here, and the applicant has not shown any awareness of the Drupal policy on 3rd party libraries. Specifically, the instructions for applying for Git access mention that 3rd party libraries should not be in the repository, yet the applicant included a 3rd party library and did not make a case for an exception in the application.

This particular 3rd party library has it's own non-GPL license in-line, along with instructions on how to download the latest version from solvemedia.com. This library is part of a commercial product.

BTW, is this application from a person or from a company account? "Solve Media" is the username, and the company distributing the 3rd party library is solvemedia.com, which seems to imply that this Drupal account is for the company's use, not for a specific individual.

Solve Media, any updates on this?
We need this for a big project....

@Solve Media has been contacted to ask if the application is abandoned.

After ten weeks with a status of needs work: the applicant may be contacted by a reviewer to determine whether the application was indeed abandoned. The action taken by the reviewer should be documented in the project application issue.

http://drupal.org/node/894256

@Solve Media, please note that "All user accounts are for individuals. Accounts created for more than one user or those using anonymous mail services will be blocked when discovered." from http://drupal.org/user/register

Please have your staff create individual accounts. (and, no, we won't block this account.)

Can one of the reviewers please clarify why solvemedialib.php is considered a 3rd party library?

This (from comment #9 above) explains it pretty explicitly:

This particular 3rd party library has it's own non-GPL license in-line, along with instructions on how to download the latest version from solvemedia.com. This library is part of a commercial product

Not only is your library unequivocally a 3rd party one (which aren't generally supposed to be distributed via drupal.org), it's not even GPL, in which case, even if otherwise justifiable according to points 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3 on the "3rd party libraries on drupal.org" page which has been previously linked here for your reference, no exception is actually warranted here. None of those potential exception justifications appear to be relevant anyway, even if your library were GPL.

Just must also do something about #13, a shared company account can not get full project access.

@MiSc Of course. I will be using this account, and other developers will be creating individual accounts as well.

@ilia_BF, if by

Of course. I will be using this account, and other developers will be creating individual accounts as well.

you mean that you are no longer attempting to gain full project promotion status for the user "Solve Media" then I would suggest creating a new issue as the user that will be the maintainer of this project and linking to this issue. Once that is done then link to that new issue from this one and close this issue as a Duplicate.

Any developer that is going to be working on this project should have his/her own account/git access.

Any developer that is going to be working on this project should have his/her own account

Yes, naturally.

/git access.

The review process grants to individuals, not organizations. Developers from the applicant's organization who work on it can be granted co-maintainer status after they contribute sufficient patches which can be reviewed. That is sort of a shortcut alternative process toward earning git access in general and commit rights on the project. Usually it's a lot less involved than the project application process.

Just to be clear, it would still be up to the original individual project applicant, in the meantime, to commit patches on the part of other contributors. This would be true no matter who the contributor might be: An un-vetted co-worker, a git-granted community member who maintains their own projects, a community member without any git access, whoever.

Patches can be attached to issues in the project's issue queue, and credit attribution should happen, on the committer's part, so that the patch contributor can have their code easily identified for co-maintainership review.

@beanluc Since the "Solve Media" account was mistakenly created for company-wide use, don't I have to close this project application as per frob (#18)?

I guess so. The instructions there seem clear.

Alternatively, maybe it would be fine to allow one and only one person to continue to use the "Solve Media" account. That person being, the one who is the actual project applicant and the primary developer/maintainer. In that case, closing the issue and creating another one under a different account should not be necessary.

frob's comments seem to be based on the assumption that the "Solve Media" account can not be used in the future as an individual person's account. I actually have no idea whether that assumption is a sound one or not.

It's a shame that this important development work got stifled by the account application process. I hope this gets resolved soon. Subscribing as we are very interested in having this module developed, and may be willing to sponsor.

Oh nonsense. The community has been very prompt in addressing this application.

If you read the above, you'll see it's the *applicant* who is responsible for 14 months of delay out of the 16 months the issue has been open. The applicant hasn't addressed ANY of the simple things pointed out by any of the community reviews, and hasn't made any changes to the repository since August 2011. We're not asking for the applicant to jump through hoops - just to read and follow the instructions for project applications. Those instructions are linked from the submission page, and again in several of the comments above, so there's really no excuse for ignoring them.

The applicant marked this issue as "postponed" in #22. It's not the community that's holding this back or putting up roadblocks, it's the applicant who seems unwilling to do even one of the things asked for above.

There's also no bar against WeRockYourWeb.com, or anyone else, simply downloading this sandbox code and... using it or developing it further. You don't need anybody's permission, if you choose to do so.

And any improvements, sponsored or otherwise, could even be offered back to SolveMedia's sandbox project for them or anyone else to benefit from. Heck, such activity could even get this project application back on track!

Closing due to lack of activity. Feel free to reopen if you are still working on this application.