Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.Problem/Motivation
The first commit of the module doesn't tell the history of the module.
As hightlighted by Dries in https://twitter.com/Dries/status/1187019097604837377, history is the best always reliable documentation for understanding why things are done the way are done.
Also, it helps keep attribution, and respects intellectual property.
Proposed resolution
Create a 8.x-2.x branch with the history before that commit, with the rest of the commits up to today applied in a new branch. Let's call that 8.x-2.x, as we don't want (and probably we cannot) mess with 8.x-1.x.
Remaining tasks
I have the technical work for this already done. I just need to push, but didn't want to do that without notice.
User interface changes
None.
API changes
None.
Data model changes
None.
Release notes snippet
None.
Comments
Comment #2
stefanweberThe commits weren't there in Bitbucket, so I could not know (maybe it should have been pushed with history in the first place).
I get that you would like to have those commits and I am not going to oppose, but it feels somehow senseless to open a new branch for no technical reason.
Comment #3
penyaskitoI have enough attribution elsewhere, my business and my salary are safe without it and my life it's complete. I couldn't care less.
About how it was delivered or not, I have no word on it, and it may have been a reason for that, I'm not aware. What I'm proposing here is, given that it's decided to contribute back the project and I have the history in my local repo, contribute that back. If someone using this module needs to find where a bug was introduced, or why things are done the way they are (the reload of the ajax panels e.g. is tricky, so it's good having a step by step).
I have not been sponsored by anyone the time spent on recreating the history of the project, nor I'm speaking for any company than myself. I think I was polite and clear enough about the technical reasons: understanding how things are done the way are done and making the project tell a story.
Attribution can be important, but for me it's not the main reason. IP it's another matter.
Feel free to reopen if you reconsider your approach to this issue.
Comment #4
stefanweberSorry if I stepped on your toes here, didn't mean to.
And I do absolutely agree that your contribution should be honored and visible.
The exact commit history I don't see so critical, but maybe I am underestimating that.
So, please move forward and push the history in to a 8.x-2.x branch.
Cheers
Comment #5
penyaskitoThanks for reconsidering it.
Pushed 8.x-2.x and created a dev release. Marked 8.x-2.x as default branch. Also enabled testing for the branch, not sure if that will work out-of-the-box in d.o but let's see.
I think 8.x-2.x should be marked as the recommended branch, a 8.x-2.0 release should be created, and 8.x-1.x should be marked as "not supported". As there is no technical change, any user can upgrade without expecting any issues.
I will leave that to you tho, so you can decide if that's desirable or not.
Comment #7
penyaskitoGive credit to facine who also worked on the first release.
Comment #8
stefanweber8.x-2.0 released.
Comment #9
stefanweberComment #10
stefanweber