Related to #303588: Show suggested replacement for obsolete modules. That issue us purely about module maintainer-sanctioned obsoletions. For example, on the http://drupal.org/project/nodewords project page, the maintainer says to go and use http://drupal.org/project/metatags.

However, there are other circumstances, touched on in the other issue, where the module maintainer either cannot (because they're not around anymore) or would never recommend module X over their own, but it does present a viable alternative for people building out sites.

The most obvious example is http://drupal.org/project/ubercart (beta) and http://drupal.org/project/commerce (stable release). But others include http://drupal.org/project/emfield (no release) and http://drupal.org/project/media (unstable), and http://drupal.org/project/metatags (unstable) and http://drupal.org/project/metatags_quick (stable).

IMO, we do justice to people evaluating their D7 upgrade prospects to point out these alternatives where they exist. But it can be politically dicey. Thoughts?

Comments

webchick’s picture

webchick
she/they
Primary language English
Location Vancouver 🇨🇦
commented
Title: Show suggested replacements for alternative modules » Identify possible alternative modules

Better title.

dave reid’s picture

dave reid
he/him
Primary language English
Location Nebraska USA
commented

I think it's perfectly fine to show alternatives as long as it's clear you likely will not be able to upgrade to an un-supported alternative.

lpalgarvio’s picture

lpalgarvio commented

agree with dave

sun’s picture

sun
Primary language German
Location Karlsruhe
commented

I guess it's only valid to point out alternatives, if those alternatives actually provide a data migration path - before or after upgrading (which makes things a lil' bit more tricky even).

In that sense, ubercart » commerce is probably valid (not verified), whereas emfield » media is probably not (another wild guess).

Overall, collecting and exposing info about alternatives would be great. But unless we're going to separate the info of stuff with migration path and stuff without, and make it 100% clear in the UI that the latter are merely "suggestions" to consider, I guess that only the former (with migration path) is socially/politically acceptable.

webchick’s picture

webchick
she/they
Primary language English
Location Vancouver 🇨🇦
commented

Hm. Well by that definition, Profile2 is not actually a replacement for Content Profile (not verified), nor is CCK fully a replacement for fields in core, at least without a gaggle of other modules.

I'm not sure we as Upgrade Status maintainers want to have to take responsibility to verify the 6 -> 7 migration paths of all the modules we list. That seems like overkill to me.

dave reid’s picture

dave reid
he/him
Primary language English
Location Nebraska USA
commented

Also, what happens when a module like Metatags also provides the same functionality as a module like Page titles in D7 (which it does now)?

lpalgarvio’s picture

lpalgarvio commented

similarly to what i thought on before, it wouldn't be bad for this module to list _alternative_, _upgrades_, _recommended_ and _similar_ modules.

though the main scope is upgrades...

colan’s picture

colan
he/him
Primary language English
Location Toronto 🇨🇦
commented
Issue summary: View changes
Status: Active » Closed (duplicate)

See #937738: Similar modules.