I'm interested in taking over maintainership (or would like to become a co-maintainer) of this module: Block Class.
I use it on several live sites/projects and have been kind of worried to see patches, issues or code updates being processed so slowly.

In particular, I would like to be able to keep working on #1868586: Alternate structural approach: modifying the block table? and if possible, have this integrated to a 7.x-2.x development branch.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get any feedback or answer from maintainers for more than a month (the only feedback I got was from other users of the module and not maintainers) on this issue and this is an attempt to try to keep things moving with this feature request/module's maintenance.

Feel free to let me know if you would have any questions, comments or issues about this ticket in general, I would be glad to answer and provide more details.

Thanks very much in advance.
Cheers!

Comments

dydave’s picture

dydave commented
Status: Active » Needs review

Changing status to: needs review as an attempt to get maintainers' attention.

Thanks in advance for your feedback, comments and replies.
Cheers!

dydave’s picture

dydave commented
Title: Request to take over maintainership/co-maintainership » Request to take over maintainership/co-maintainership for Block Class

Adding project name in issue title to try to catch the attention of people reading via the global tracker.

Thanks in advance for your feedback, comments and replies.
Cheers!

todd nienkerk’s picture

todd nienkerk commented
Assigned: Unassigned » todd nienkerk
Status: Needs review » Fixed

@DYdave: Thank you for offering to help maintain this module. Your activity in the issue queue demonstrates enthusiasm for continuing to make this module great. I have granted you access to commit code, administer releases, and maintain the issue queue.

Major changes in the functionality or configuration of the module should be released as new versions of the module (meaning 7.x-2.x rather than 7.x-1.x). This is a very popular module, so significant changes within a point release will cause worry and confusion as users update the module and no longer recognize how it works.

dydave’s picture

dydave commented

Hi Todd,

Thank you very much for your very kind reply, prompt follow up and trust on this.

Yes, definitely, if you look at the implementation discussed at #1868586-2: Alternate structural approach: modifying the block table?, you will see it was suggested for a 7.x-2.x branch:

Another option would be to create another/new branch 7.x-2.x, for example, which would leave the choice to developers and users to choose a preferred structural implementation (features would be the same, with or without the block_css table).

For those who would like to update from 7.x-1.x to 7.x-2.x it should already be possible with the proposed implementation (with patch) that has been successfully tested by hackwater at #1868586-5: Alternate structural approach: modifying the block table?.

I'm still holding up the commit until I get your green light at #1868586-12: Alternate structural approach: modifying the block table?:

If you don't have any objections with that and the implementation above looks good/consistent/solid to you, I will allow myself to go ahead and commit the proposed version in the 7.x-2.x development branch.

Please let me know if you would have any more questions, issues, comments, recommendations or concerns on any aspects of the suggested implementation for 7.x-2.x, I would be glad to provide more information or explain in further details.

Once again, thank you very much for giving me a chance to try to keep this moving forward.
Cheers!

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.