Closed (duplicate)
Project:
Drupal.org customizations
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
28 Oct 2008 at 08:15 UTC
Updated:
28 Oct 2008 at 18:52 UTC
At http://groups.drupal.org/node/16246 I've identified that there are at least two custom modules only run on drupal.org which are not part of drupalorg module in the directory tree. These are the IRC nickname search and legacy XML-RPC interface support for update_status 1.x clients. We should move these to the drupalorg module in CVS.
Also, there are numerous modules under the drupalorg module on the file system which are not committed to the drupalorg module in CVS. It would help upgrading them a lot, if they were actually committed and maintained in CVS.
Comments
Comment #1
gábor hojtsyI should have been filed this against drupalorg module. The ircnick merge issue is now at http://drupal.org/node/327070 so we only have moving and committing the XML-RPC BC module and the rest of the submodules to CVS.
Comment #2
dwwdrupalorg module is a mess. It started out nice and clean, and then killes gave out commit access to a wide audience and it has since become a dumping ground. The usual care by which I maintain code that runs on d.o is gone. The directory layout and filenames are sloppy. I'd personally like to reign this in and go back to having a small set of people with commit access who actually go through the usual process of getting at least one other maintainer to review a patch before committing.
FYI: both ircnick and project_xmlrpc_legacy live in the private repo, so they were in CVS, just not where most people could find them.
I'm happy moving ircnick into drupalorg module, though I wouldn't have minded doing that myself since it was my code in the first place. The curse of living in GMT-700, I guess. ;)
I'm not sure it's worth doing the same for project_xmlrpc_legacy, we should probably just turn that off entirely at this point. update_status 5.x-1.* has been unsupported for 1.5 years. Anyone still running that should probably get the 404 they deserve. ;) Sounds like that's a decision we should make over in the infra queue, for example, #167494: Disable project_xmlrpc_legacy.module.
Also, there are numerous modules under the drupalorg module on the file system which are not committed to the drupalorg module in CVS.
Not sure what you mean. Looking on the d.o filesystem right now, I don't see any locally modified or uncommitted modules. Did you already do this yourself, or are you looking somewhere other than sites/drupal.org/modules/drupalorg ?
Comment #3
gábor hojtsyThe problem with maintaining things like ircnick and project_xmlrpc_legacy in the private repo is that it clutters resources. Human and machine resources alike. There was nothing secret in ircnick and running it as its own module even eats up more machine resources on drupal.org.
The lack of change resulted in http://drupal.org/features showcasing Drupal 4.3 images as Drupal features, so I don't think that a moving drupalorg module is a problem. Also killes' handing out maintainership helped move away from PHP blocks on the site, which was great for security, and now we can actually review the code in there. I think keeping the gates tight is good, but if the keeper lacks time to devote to the project, involving more people is important or we get to the features page fiasco. There were 5 years old(!) screenshots and feature descriptions showcased on the features page (and they still are except that now the docs team will go in and improve it), while a quick coordinated change in drupalorg module, deployment on drupal.org and disabling feature module solved it in 15 minutes: http://drupal.org/node/327034
You are right in that there are no drupalorg modules which are not committed to CVS, I was also mislead by the not so good naming used.
Looks like the rest is duplicate with http://drupal.org/node/167494 so moving there. The lack of reviews or any progress on that simple issue is in itself a testament of how good an idea it is to keep otherwise completely fine code in a private repo. How would anybody be competent in reviewing it if you were not confident in committing it through more then one year which passed since the issue was committed. The private repo is only available to a select few. I've certainly never seen it.
Comment #4
dwwircnick and project_xmlrpc_legacy were in the private repo from before drupalorg module existed. Better they were in CVS at all than sitting directly on the d.o filesystem without any version control, which was often the practice before I was involved. I agree that drupalorg is a better place, which is why I made drupalorg module in the first place. ;) I just forgot about ircnick and project_xmlrpc_legacy and never moved them into drupalorg...
Please refrain from blaming me (explicitly or implicitly) for anything having to do with feature.module. ;)