Request to become a contributor for this module + a D6 port

Haven't had a chance to test out your module yet, but preliminary questions:

- Do you already have CVS access?
- Have you managed other projects on d.o through CVS?
- For the Drupal 5 work, I used the following workflow -

1. Committed the initial code.
2. Made it a D5 branch.
3. Tagged it for the DRUPAL-5--1-0 release.

It seems like you'd simply have to checkout HEAD, make a new DRUPAL-6--1 branch, commit your changes, and tag it for the release. Is this how you would normally operate, or do you use the alternate philosophy of doing all new development in HEAD and branching / tagging only when a stable release has arrived?

Also, will you be available in case any D6 issues arise?

- Do you already have CVS access?
I don't have CVS access yet - I've been using Drupal heavily for the past year and have written a fair few patches in that time. It's getting to the point where I know the Drupal code very well, I've made several decent contributions, and I'd like to start getting some recognition for the hard work I've been putting in. In the past week or so I have made similar requests for commit privileges on other modules that I've been working on. As I understand it, you agreeing for me to help out with the maintenance of this module is enough to get CVS access.

- Have you managed other projects on Drupal through CVS?
I used to use CVS heavily (I've been doing web dev for almost 10 years now), however, these days I choose svn for my own projects for a number of reasons. That said, I'm still very familiar with the CVS workflow.

With regards to work-flow, I'm flexible, but I think the best thing would be to cut a DRUPAL-6--1 branch and do all the new dev work in there, backporting when necessary.

With regards to availability. I'm a full time freelance web developer and am at my computer most of the time. I can't offer much in the way of D5 support, but for D6 it's not a problem.

Alrighty, well sounds good to me. It's not like this module is my pride and joy that no one else can touch or anything. ; )

What you said for the CVS strategy sounds right to me. Once you get CVS Access approved, let me know and I'll add you to the project.

Hi, I've just been approved for CVS access. I've also been reading through all the official notes on managing Drupal projects with CVS... It seems like generally the done thing is to use HEAD for the "new feature" branch for the current stable core (http://drupal.org/node/17570) and to branch when stable releases are ready. I'm kind of in two minds about this - it seems like a good idea to keep HEAD as the active development branch, but at the same time it seems like it may be adding in unnecessary complications and confusion as to where the latest code is for each branch. I guess I'd rather just make a DRUPAL-6--1 branch and keep the D6 work in there as it seems like a clearer route but I'll leave the decision up to you.

Either way, I'll get this code committed once you have added me to the project.

Yeah, I've been part of discussions where this documented method is said to be desired while the alternate one of doing development in the branch is still available. It makes more sense to me to do development in the branch instead of HEAD, particularly since you can then do development versions that will actually be packaged up by Drupal for the specific branch. Seems kinda silly to me that they'd offer branch development versions but then still want all of a module's development to happen in HEAD. : ?

I'll add you in right now, and thanks for your contribution! : )

Just saw the commit. Gonna mark this one fixed for now. Welcome aboard!

thanks, look forward to working with you.

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