CVS app: #779256: cmcintosh [cmcintosh]

Actual contributed module: http://drupal.org/project/custom_registration (completely different from module submitted with app)

Related issue requesting info: #891208: What is the difference between this module, and the existing ones?.

<sigh>, apparently another case of approved for one module but contributes a duplicate module for something else entirely. I'm not sure what the consensus was for this-- i lost track of the discussion and couldn't find the related issues.

This one bothers me in particular because when asked for clarification I'm expected to test the solutions myself and document the differences.

Comments

greggles’s picture

greggles
he/him
Primary language English
Location Denver, Colorado, USA
commented
Title: module duplication question. » Module duplication and committing module different from cvs application: cmcintosh, custom_registration

Getting more details in the title so we can hopefully have a better conversation on the topic from interested parties.

dave reid’s picture

dave reid
he/him
Primary language English
Location Nebraska USA
commented

Also see #822258: cmcintosh [cmcintosh]

avpaderno’s picture

avpaderno
he/him
Primary language Italian
Location Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺
commented
Title: Module duplication and committing module different from cvs application: cmcintosh, custom_registration » Module duplication and committing module different from CVS application: cmcintosh, custom_registration

The referred CVS application is marked as won't fix; that is not the application used to get the CVS account.
The CVS application for which the account has been created is #822258: cmcintosh [cmcintosh], where the user applied to take over an existing (abandoned) project.

I don't think the problem would be to create a project different from the one used for the application; I would expect that the module used for a CVS application is created, once the application is approved, but I don't think this should be forced.
I also remember that already in one case the user applied to become co-maintainer of a project, but then created a module that was a duplicate of the module for which the user applied. In that case it has been decided to not do anything; I don't think this case is different.

WorldFallz’s picture

WorldFallz commented

I'm not sure what the 'right' answer is. I'm just bothered by the fact that someone would be denied a cvs app for one module, then, 4 days later, apply to take over an existing module and ultimately contribute a duplicate module having nothing to do with either cvs application. Then, to top it off, refuse to describe on the project page what this duplicate module does that is different than the existing solution.

avpaderno’s picture

avpaderno
he/him
Primary language Italian
Location Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺
commented

The maintainer should describe the differences between the module he created, and the existing ones reported in #891208: What is the difference between this module, and the existing ones?. It would also better if the project page would link to the modules in sentence like If you are interested in modules with similar purposes, see ….

As far as I can see, a maintainer has never been forced to add such notes in his project page, though. This doesn't mean this should not be the case; it doesn't seem to me that this is the generally accepted way to proceed in these cases.

WorldFallz’s picture

WorldFallz commented

yep-- and that's all i was asking for when I created that issue. Being told to install the modules and figure it out for myself is not acceptable imo. Ignoring the issue of creating a bs comaintainer application in order to publish a duplicate module, if one is going to publish a duplicate module, it should be the maintainer's responsibility to document the duplicate modules and explain what theirs does differently.

avpaderno’s picture

avpaderno
he/him
Primary language Italian
Location Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺
commented

@WorldFallz: I agree with that.
I remember that at the beginning I created two modules that were duplicate of existing project, and I have been asked to explain the difference between my module, and the existing one. I added an explanation of the difference as requested me, even if the reason of adding an explanation was not clear to me, at that time; I also remember I took it as something that was requested me, and not to any users who created a duplicated module.

I think the problem is making clear to the user that requesting to add a note about the differences with the existing modules is also in his interest; it's not something that is requested to put him in a bad light, nor to show his ignorance in the matter. Maybe, if more users would report that, the user would understand it's not a critique made from a single user for his own interests.

sreynen’s picture

sreynen commented
Status: Active » Fixed

The project has since been marked as abandoned, so I think there's nothing left to do on this.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

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