Come together with the global Drupal community in Rotterdam, 28 Sept – 1 Oct 2026. Sessions, contribution, connection, and Early Bird savings until 8 June.Heh, I didn't know what version to assign this question to. ;)
Anyway, I'm confused by the versioning on this module. The official release is 5.x-2.14 and last updated 2007-Jul-02 but the dev release is 5.x-1.x-dev last updated 2007-Aug-28. Why is the 1.x line the dev version and more recently updated than the 2.x line?
I'm currently using 5.x-1.x-dev (2007-Jul-13) and update_status is telling me to use 5.x-2.14 (2007-Jul-02) which would actually be going backwards in time but upwards in versions. I'm more interested in having the latest features than perfect code, as long as it's not horribly unstable, so would I be better off going to 5.x-1.x-dev (2007-Aug-28) or jumping (backwards?) to the 2.x line?
To make matters worse, I see mention of a 3.x line in the issue queue! LOL!
Thanks,
Michelle
Comments
Comment #1
chadchandler commentedAlso curious.
Comment #2
jredding commentedDev = development. Unless you are a developer or are willing to document bugs or roll patches you should NOT be using the development. Always stick with the stable, released versions.
The stable version will always reflect the correct versions. As of this comment 2.14 is the latest stable release and version 3.0 is almost complete.
The dates with DEV being later than stable is probably because of a random tag on commit. The stable version are tagged correctly and the development version is just that in development and thus not stable.
Comment #3
jredding commentedClosing this issue.
Comment #4
michelleRe-opening this issue because I'm not looking for general advice; I'm trying to figure out the strange numbering of this particular module. I'm well aware of the risks of running dev code and make that choice on a module by module basis. I intend to use the dev version of this module but the odd numbering is throwing me off. From what I can tell from the release listing, 1.x is the dev version while 2.x is the stable version and 3.x is an unknown version. This doesn't make sense, so I'm trying to figure out what line I should be on to get the active dev version. I know some modules have a fairly stable dev line where they add more features but don't make radical changes and also run an unstable dev line with experimental code at the same time. In that case, I would want to be on the stable dev, not the experimental one. So which one is that? :)
Thanks,
Michelle
Comment #5
jredding commentedIn userpoints and with every other module there is NO stable development branch. That would defeat the entire purpose of using the terms development and stable.
To answer your question HEAD is the development version and version 3.x is a BRANCH of HEAD that is creating version 3.0. Version 3.0 is NOT COMPATIBLE with ANY version 2.0 contributed modules. If you're looking for the latest code from 2.14 then use HEAD, however, I don't think there is anything new when I look at the CVS messages. In fact I think the last change was some minor code formatting items that I checked in.
Closing the issue again.
Comment #6
jredding commentedforgot to close the issue.
Comment #7
michelleI know dev versions aren't stable. That's why I said "fairly stable". It's not unusual to have a dev version that is getting continually bugfixed and minor new features but no radical changes and that's what I tend to use. So it sounds like the 3.x line would be the "radical change" line so I'll avoid that. Just as well as 3.x isn't even listed in releases. I still don't understand why 1.x is being updated and has a dev version where as 2.x is older and its dev version is disguised as head but I guess I'll just have to accept that this module does things weird. Best I can tell from your answers is that I want the 2.x line and that it's not worth bothering with the dev version which isn't marked as a dev version because there's only extremely minor changes anyway.
So, I'll just give up on sorting out the confusing release mess on this module and just use the stable version. And, yes, I realize that's what you said in the first place but I wanted to make that decision based on understanding which code was which and not just generically being told I shouldn't use dev versions.
Thanks,
Michelle
Comment #8
jredding commentedThe number of the dev version may be odd but remember that this is only a commit tag and has very little to do with the actual code. You're correct though it should be removed to avoid future confusion.
The last commit to HEAD was minor code cleanup thus 2.14 and HEAD are nearly identical at this point (as of today). In the future I would suggest that you always use the stable version of this module. If you look at the history of this module stable versions are released quite often and code checked into HEAD (thus out to a dev release) is definitely not stable and at times can be rather unstable.
Finally please don't forget that cvs.drupal.org houses ALL of the code and you can DIFF the changes between two versions via the web. If you wanted to know what was different between the DEV release and the 2.14 release you could go to cvs and check.
Comment #9
michelleNow that I understand things a bit better, yeah, I'll stick to the stable version on this module. Sorry if I got a bit huffy in this issue. I just got annoyed at being generically told "don't use dev versions" when I was trying to figure this out. I use dev versions whenever I can because I have a site that's still in development and so can tolerate less stable code and most of them don't have stable releases very often, if at all.
The reason I was so confused here is there is a 5.x-1.x-dev listed in "view all releases" but there is no 5.x-2.x-dev. And the 5.x-1.x-dev version is the most recently updated. 5.x-3.x doesn't show up at all so I wasn't even considering using that one. I was just trying to decide between the (apparantly) most recently updated 1.x and the numerically higher 2.x. Does that make sense?
As to CVS... I did poke around in there trying to see what was what with each version but I was just as lost there.
Anyway, let's put this to rest. Thank you for your help and, again, I apologize for getting snippy.
Michelle