I can understand when a module is old and klunky or overly complex for your needs, but please make an effort to cooperate with the other maintainers of the google appliance module before polluting the namespace by creating a module which does almost the same thing. It just confuses users. I don't actively maintain the GSA module anymore, but please make at least some effort to reach out to the current maintainers - that's how we build a better product!

Thanks,
Jacob

Comments

drupalninja99’s picture

drupalninja99 commented

I will try, but I needed something that worked. I don't like the direction of the other module, it's got everything we don't need.

drupalninja99’s picture

drupalninja99 commented
Status: Active » Closed (fixed)
JacobSingh’s picture

JacobSingh commented

Well improve it! No one is stopping you from submitting patches over there, and people will appreciate your changes. Contributing by polluting the namespace helps no one, yourself or others.

There is a somewhat active community over there (not me anymore - I do apache solr stuff now), I encourage you to become part of it.

Best,
Jacob

drupalninja99’s picture

drupalninja99 commented

well sure maybe i could, it looks like it's had some development, but at the time i needed a solid gsa search that was easy to theme, it was still in very heavy development and wasn't what i needed.

aufumy’s picture

aufumy commented

sometimes it can seem daunting to contribute to a larger project, but it can be worthwhile, if dealing with a relatively good maintainer, as they will add your patches as well as others, and you will get new features (if needed in the future), without too much sweat.

mjohnq3’s picture

mjohnq3 commented

I fail to see the purpose of this issue other than to bash a new developer/contributor over the head. This person created a module that satisfied a requirement he had and offered it back to the Drupal community, which is certainly not required. It may have similar functionality to the GSA module but in his opinion it doesn’t actually duplicate the current, unfinished, one, Apparently it was accepted (by the Community? the undead kittens?) as it has an actual released version, unlike your module. There also doesn’t appear to be any co-maintainer, backdoor CVS shenanigans, in this particular case.

In your opinion he “polluted the namespace” but in raising this issue you only serve to poison the well by creating an environment in which new contributors are led to believe that there exists a gatekeeper who must grant approval for any of their contributions. As far as I’m aware, no such gatekeeper actually exists to evaluate new modules except for basic compliance of coding standards, security issues, and other best practices. And even then, only released versions of modules undergo further scrutiny. It also creates an artificial barrier to new contributors for entry into the Drupal community because if it becomes too difficult or even impossible to create new projects on D.O. then more code will end up being maintained on GitHub or similar code repositories, and/or on Feature servers and the like.

There are dozens of WYSIWYG’s and dozens of this and that project, of which many have similar functionality. Heck, there seems to be a new Gallery thing nearly every month! And then there’s GSA and GSA Simple Search. My God… the sky is falling… and those poor kittens! Plus, duplicate projects are a good thing (according to Dries) as they actually contribute to innovation. (h/t to webchick.)

Please refer to: http://drupal.org/node/645470, and in particular comment #10, paragraph 4. This pretty much hits the nail on the head with respect to what new contributors often face when dealing with an existing project that has a “somewhat active community”. The entire discussion of who can contribute what and under what circumstances seems to remain an open one for now. (Also see comment #29 for the latest thinking on the issue.)

The GSA issues queue has many open issues and bug reports including a reported XXS security vulnerability. The person who opened that issue was told by the current “maintainer” (who seems to agree) to report it to the Drupal security team. As far as I’m aware, the security team may not necessarily issue an SA for an unreleased module. So, dozens or even hundreds of sites using GSA may be vulnerable entirely without knowing it.

Perhaps your time would have been better spent by opening an issue in the GSA queue asking the current maintainers, such as they are, to get their act together, clean up the issues queue, and get this project released as it has been in existence for over two years, with a beta release almost a year old, with little current activity, no actual released version, and a potentially serious security vulnerability. All of that would seem to be a much bigger real problem than a supposed duplicate project.

aufumy’s picture

aufumy commented

Part of being in the opensource space, means being allowed to have an opinion. Whether others agree or not.

You rightfully point out that new modules can bring innovation. The reason is that new modules may do things in a better, more efficient or smarter way, by starting fresh, rather than dealing with outdated technology or non committal developers.

However, I do not think the answer is as simple as to say; always start new projects rather than contribute back to an existing. If that were the case there would be a new drupal every day.

Sometimes maybe starting a new drupal labeled foobar, because I seriously don't like the lack of postgres support, might be a good thing, but it doesn't mean it is always a good thing.