I originally submitted code for CVS formatted in my own way (read: tabs instead of two spaces, opening curly brace on the following line) and had my code accepted, and was given CVS access. For the past year and a half, I have done my best to keep my issue queue clean, and maintain modules with clean code, that follows the API as much as possible. Unfortunately, Mr. Gerhard Killesreiter has decided that using tabs and extra lines was such an infraction as to make my contributions to Drupal no longer tolerable, and my CVS access has been cut off (see this thread for reference).
If this coding standard is so bad, why was my initial code acceptable enough to grant me CVS access? I feel that for the sake of consistency, my code either should have been denied then, or should still be acceptable now.
Anyways, I've enjoyed my time developing modules, and unfortunately I will have to keep my future modules for myself instead of sharing them with the Drupal community. It's too bad, as I like to give back to the community instead of only taking, but my contributions are unwelcome, and as such, I am not able to share anymore. Still, thank you for the opportunity, and regardless of this, Drupal is still my main choice as a CMS, and I will continue to both work with it extensively in the future, and provide support in the forums as I have tried to do.
Comments
Comment #1
sreynen commentedI wasn't able to location your initial CVS application. If you know where it is, a pointer would help add context here.
If someone said in your initial CVS application that coding standards aren't important, that was a mistake. The CVS application guidelines page clearly states following coding standards is important. However, they are not required, and that seems to be a key distinction here, as you're apparently well aware the community finds coding standards important, but choose not to follow them anyway. Apparently some people would prefer coding standards be required, and while I could get behind that, this doesn't seem to be currently stated anywhere.
So I don't see this as inconsistency in the guidelines, but rather application of guidelines that don't currently exist. As that application was already reversed by greggles, is there anything left to do here?
(Edited to change node ID to link. Didn't realize only issue nodes are linked automatically.)
Comment #2
jaypanThank you for your reply. Unfortunately I do not have a link to my original application. However, I can say with certainty that no one said coding standards are not important (my first application was actually denied for not using db_rewrite_sql()), but having accepted my code formatted they way it was, was an implicit acceptance of my style of coding, particularly as it was denied once previously for other grounds and no mention was made of my code formatting.
That being said, there isn't really anything to be done for me - greggles has re-instated my account. As such, I will mark this issue closed. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to resuming maintenance of my modules.
Comment #3
jaypanComment #4
avpadernoIn CVS applications review, what to expect it's clearly stated that
As the user applied for a CVS account before the current system has been created, I would not block his account just because he didn't follow the coding standards. If his code would contain a security issue, and it doesn't follow the coding standards, then that would be a problem specific to the project containing such code, not to his CVS account.
Comment #5
greggles"should" is not "must".
Comment #6
avpadernoThe point is not that, though.
If somebody wrote a module that contains not secure code, he doesn't get his account blocked; if he doesn't correct the code, then the project could be unpublished, but the user will still have his CVS account.
I don't know in the specific why the account has been disabled; generally speaking, I don't think that writing not secure code, or code that doesn't follow the coding standards, would be a reason to block a CVS account.