XOOPS 
Forum
Forum Index General Forums Community Support Modules Support Themes Support Development International Support Module Hack Reviews Theme Designer Talk
  1. Board index / 
  2. General XOOPS.org forums / 
  3. File repository - Maintenance 
  4.  / Repository: Rules discussion
Register
1
Bender
Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 16:10

  • Bender

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1899

  • Since: 2003/3/10


Now this topic is for any comments/discussion of the rules applied the module repository part.


The basic requirements for all submissions are currently:

- only final versions (no alpha, beta, rc)
- quality description
- included readme (and upgrade info where applicable)
- license information
[Edit] - compatible to the current stable XOOPS version (2.0.16; for now also for the latest XOOPS 2.2.4)
(modules no longer compatible will be removed on new XOOPS releases or moved to an "old" area)

There is another discussion unfinished until today about what qualifies as a module over here:

How do you define a XOOPS module
Sorry, this signature is experiencing technical difficulties. We will return you to the sheduled signature as soon as possible ...
2
vaughan
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 18:40

  • vaughan

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 680

  • Since: 2005/11/26


i'm not sure about > - only final versions (no alpha, beta, rc)


i can understand and see your reasoning for this, but i think stopping the submission of at least Beta & RC versions may inadvertantly hurt module testing phases, unless of course we can setup some kind of alternative where Beta/RC releases can be submitted? not all devs will want to or use the dev site as it stands.

Alpha releases i'm fine with not allowing because mainly they are for developers to test with before moving upto a beta release.
3
Bender
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 18:44

  • Bender

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1899

  • Since: 2003/3/10


Those versions can still be made public by the regular module news.

However download links should point then to the authors page so people will still be aware of releases and can still download them of course.

Nothing of this is carved in stone though hence this thread.

However in the past there were complaints about people unsure whether they could use those versions on their site or not. Now when you go to the new repository you can just download a module and use it for your production site.

Since alpha, beta ... should only be available for a limited amount of time downloading them from the authors page, dev.xoops.org or sf.net should not do any damage.
Sorry, this signature is experiencing technical difficulties. We will return you to the sheduled signature as soon as possible ...
4
Anonymous
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 18:57

  • Anonymous

  • Posts: 0

  • Since:


Are we, the great unwashed, supposed to be able to see and contribute to this?
5
vaughan
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 18:58

  • vaughan

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 680

  • Since: 2005/11/26


what about:

strict adhering of the file/folder structure

ie. some modules when you unzip them, they have

-testmodule
--public_html
---docs
---modules
----testmodule

and so on.

for some users this has been unclear with what folder they actually upload & to where.. in the above case it would be ----testmodule they upload to modules folder or ---modules they upload to xoops_root
6
davidl2
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 18:59

  • davidl2

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4843

  • Since: 2003/5/26


Quote:

JAVesey wrote:
Are we, the great unwashed, supposed to be able to see and contribute to this?


Have you seen the spotlighted news article?
7
davidl2
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 19:00

  • davidl2

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4843

  • Since: 2003/5/26


Vaughan - yes, the folder structure is another good point.. sometimes it can be very confusing....
8
Anonymous
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 19:01

  • Anonymous

  • Posts: 0

  • Since:


Quote:
davidl2 wrote:

Have you seen the spotlighted news article?


I have now..............

Sorry
9
Herko
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 19:29

  • Herko

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4238

  • Since: 2002/2/4 1


What about these:

- naming convention: rules for naming a XOOPS module mod_x2.0/2/3/all_name_version.ext
- module structure: the downloaded archive extracts to htdocs/modules/modulename folder (similar to the XOOPS core distro), including a docs/ folder and the full paths to the module folder
- versioning: in the repository, please use one entry per module, not per module version. This means updating a module entry when a newer version is released.
- language files: added to the module package (high maintenance) or as separate downloads (where?)

And these:
- reviews of modules (each month a new module review?)
- tested or not
- central download location or decentralised
- module packs

Herko
10
Catzwolf
Re: Repository: Rules discussion

  • 2007/4/21 20:42

  • Catzwolf

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1392

  • Since: 2007/9/30


I am not being funny, but you guys really should by now know what need to be done and how it should be done. Stop asking what we do we think and just do it now.

We have had topics upon topics about this over and over again (use XOOPS search for this topics and use that as a model). Just do it and set the standards and let people know what you expect.

Yawn!!!
(1) 2 3 4 »

Login

Register now!  |  Lost Password?

Search

Advanced Search

Recent Posts

Who's Online

150 user(s) are online (95 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)

Members: 0

Guests: 150

more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Apr 30
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits