Unpublish projects with no code on drupal.org [#1216964]

Comment	File	Size	Author
#17	xaa.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xab.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xac.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xad.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xae.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xaf.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xag.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xah.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xai.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xaj.txt	2.13 KB	killes@www.drop.org
#17	xak.txt	763 bytes	killes@www.drop.org

Comment #1

lisarex CreditAttribution: lisarex commented 13 July 2011 at 00:23

+1 to deleting projects without code because they offer no value.

But there are a couple exceptions in that list:

* Bluecheese project is used for d.o. theme issues
* Redesign project, while technically obsolete, still has issues in it that I (or some other willing volunteer) need to re-file, unless the issues can be moved to Drupalorg customizations in bulk, then re-filed elsewhere if needed)

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #2

tim.plunkett

he/him

English

Philadelphia

CreditAttribution: tim.plunkett commented 13 July 2011 at 00:25

Is this a feature request or a task? Should I start in on this list with no warning to the maintainer? Or are we following the abandoned module procedures for each?

Also, unpublishing is bad, it is VERY confusing to those that get access denied. How about we stick to the Dealing with abandoned projects stuff?

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #3

coltrane

he/him

CreditAttribution: coltrane commented 13 July 2011 at 00:37

How about we delete them?

At first I didn't understand the value of this issue at all - just leave them be, but then I remembered that this content is appearing in search results and other links. Is there value in a codeless projects? Perhaps if there are issues or documentation with ideas, but otherwise I think there's very little value.

If we delete the project nodes you get a 404 instead and it's less confusing.

I would be in favor of a process like the abandoned projects where some public notice is made and an email to the project maintainer(s). After a set amount of time with no response the project is deleted.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #3.0

coltrane

he/him

CreditAttribution: coltrane commented 13 July 2011 at 00:37

Issue summary:

View changes

(I removed the lazy webmasters and the even lazier infra team...)

forgot that

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #4

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 13 July 2011 at 11:36

Most of these projects never took off and are pure placeholders, so there is indeed very little value in keeping them.

The reason for unpublish vs delete is that the projects may have some issues attached to them. If we delete the project node we lose that connection and have some dangling issues that we'd need to clean up separately.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #5

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 13 July 2011 at 12:26

Unpublishing also has the advantage that nodes can be republished should the "maintainer" not agree. I do not plan to contact the maintainers of these projects.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #6

Dave Reid

he/him

English

Nebraska USA

CreditAttribution: Dave Reid commented 17 August 2011 at 23:42

Unpublishing will also cause a WTF of 'where the hell did it go?' for maintainers rather than it being re-assigned to the 'Abandoned Projects' user and still being visible. I'm still in strong favor of our project pages not showing modules with uid = 291168 by default and exposing a 'Show abandoned modules' checkbox.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #7

sun

German

Karlsruhe

CreditAttribution: sun commented 10 September 2011 at 00:37

FWIW, http://drupal.org/project/filter purposively contains no code. Though that's a minor exception to the others.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #8

coderintherye CreditAttribution: coderintherye commented 5 December 2011 at 18:45

Yes, can we please do this, it has been on my Drupal wish list for some time.

I'm personally in favor of deletion, at the very least, deleting the projects that have no code and no issues attached to them. (and perhaps we could do a cursory check on a few that I know have only 1 issue and that's, "Make a release".

If we think deletion is too much, then let's push all these projects over in to respective sandboxes. Is that possible? That's where they belong, not as publish projects on d.o. That will solve much of the 'showing up in the search results' problem.

If there is work to be done with this, I'm happy to volunteer my time to get done what I can, though I have no d.o. admin rights.

@Sun Why does that need to be there when it can just be a sandbox project? It makes no sense to me to have placeholders when we have sandboxes now.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #9

sun

German

Karlsruhe

CreditAttribution: sun commented 5 December 2011 at 19:44

It blocks the "filter" namespace being used by filter.module in Drupal core.

It's not the only one of that kind. A D8 core issue just recently reminded me that we also had to block http://drupal.org/project/view, since Drupal's current module hook syntax effectively blocks that name, and so a module/project using that name would produce massive troubles.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #10

Michelle

she/her

English

Wisconsin, USA

CreditAttribution: Michelle commented 7 February 2012 at 16:19

This issue has come up in #1427148: [Meta] How should joke modules be handled?

Michelle

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #11

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 10 March 2012 at 15:33

It sounds like this is stuck on a question of unpublish vs. delete because it would be too time-consuming to go through the abandoned project process for all of these. Since a few projects on the list have already been identified as not abandoned, I think it's worth going through the process of contacting maintainers despite how much time it would take. And I'm willing to take that time, to follow the abandoned project process on each project in the list, if everyone's okay with that approach.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #12

coderintherye CreditAttribution: coderintherye commented 11 March 2012 at 23:52

If we are going to go through the abandoned module process, which I think for these cases is a waste of time, but whatever if we're willing to do it, why don't we at least write a script that will post an issue in each queue as well as contact each maintainer with the boilerplate message for asking if the project is abandoned.

If you choose to go through manually, do everyone the favor of highlighting the ones that have been contacted in the issue summary, so we can make this a bit of a group effort and get it moving forward.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #13

coderintherye CreditAttribution: coderintherye commented 11 March 2012 at 23:57

Also, should #6 be spun off as an issue in the webmaster's queue? I'd like to see this happen.

On that note, for namespace projects, can we put them in robots.txt for exclusion at least?

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #14

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 14 March 2012 at 03:02

Any volunteers to write that script? If so, great, let's do that. If not, I'd rather do it manually than try to figure out an automated solution myself. I would certainly keep the list updated, as I'd need that for my own records. I don't imagine I'd be able to go through the entire list in one go.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #15

coderintherye CreditAttribution: coderintherye commented 14 March 2012 at 03:16

Ok, let's do this then, just update the ones you do, and then if I get time I'll write a script and grab any in the list that aren't done yet.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #16

Michelle

she/her

English

Wisconsin, USA

CreditAttribution: Michelle commented 14 March 2012 at 04:25

If you're going to go thru them manually, might want to get an updated list. That one is from last July.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #16.0

Michelle

she/her

English

Wisconsin, USA

CreditAttribution: Michelle commented 14 March 2012 at 04:25

Issue summary:

View changes

removed bluecheese and redesign per lisarex in #1

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #16.1

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 14 March 2012 at 19:49

Issue summary:

View changes

manual processing

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #17

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 20 March 2012 at 23:16

File	Size
xak.txt	763 bytes
xaj.txt	2.13 KB
xai.txt	2.13 KB
xah.txt	2.13 KB
xag.txt	2.13 KB
xaf.txt	2.13 KB
xae.txt	2.13 KB
xad.txt	2.13 KB
xac.txt	2.13 KB
xab.txt	2.13 KB
xaa.txt	2.13 KB

Updated list.

I've attached a number files which contain parts of this list so everybody can grab 1 and we can coordinate. I propose that people update the summary with the file they've taken.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #17.0

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 20 March 2012 at 23:16

Issue summary:

View changes

manual processing

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #18

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 20 March 2012 at 23:30

I've unpublished the first 20 and put a link to this issue into the log rev field.

I guess we could also write a script to unpublish issue nodes that belong to unpublished projects.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #19

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 21 March 2012 at 13:20

What about the objection to unpublishing in #6? I'd like to better understand how this queue works so I can help with issues like this, but I'm not clear on what happened here.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #20

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 21 March 2012 at 13:31

IMO the "wtf where did the module go" argument isn't applicable since this issue is about projects which either never had any code or only code for an ancient Drupal release.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #21

Michelle

she/her

English

Wisconsin, USA

CreditAttribution: Michelle commented 21 March 2012 at 13:31

Maybe unpublish if it's been abandoned so long the maintainer is unlikely to come back but re-assign otherwise?

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #22

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 21 March 2012 at 13:35

And for the above reason there is no value to expose these nodes to anybody (ie in project listings, search, etc) since they have absolutely no use.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #22.0

killes@www.drop.org CreditAttribution: killes@www.drop.org commented 21 March 2012 at 13:35

Issue summary:

View changes

Update summary

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #23

coderintherye CreditAttribution: coderintherye commented 21 March 2012 at 20:06

+1 to killes

This is the right solution. People can create sandboxes.

Are there even any projects with a ton of issues? Most have 0 or very few, so we are not losing much by unpublishing.

Thank you killes

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #24

Dave Reid

he/him

English

Nebraska USA

CreditAttribution: Dave Reid commented 22 March 2012 at 07:06

Note we probably also shouldn't delete 'Drupal.org redesign' and 'Bluecheese'

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #25

mlhess CreditAttribution: mlhess commented 22 March 2012 at 15:25

xab.txt is done

http://drupal.org/project/Drupaltestbed and http://drupal.org/node/197195
These was left published.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #26

mlhess CreditAttribution: mlhess commented 22 March 2012 at 15:44

xac.txt and xad.txt is done as well

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #27

mlhess CreditAttribution: mlhess commented 22 March 2012 at 16:48

xae.txt is done

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #27.0

mlhess CreditAttribution: mlhess commented 22 March 2012 at 16:48

Issue summary:

View changes

Signing off another file

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #28

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 22 March 2012 at 19:50

mlhess, I added your name next to the sections you've completed. If you do more, please update the project description rather than leaving comments to make it easier to quickly see what's done and not done.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #28.0

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 22 March 2012 at 19:50

Issue summary:

View changes

Updated progress.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #28.1

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 22 March 2012 at 19:51

Issue summary:

View changes

Progress!

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #28.2

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 23 March 2012 at 23:06

Issue summary:

View changes

Progress

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #29

sreynen CreditAttribution: sreynen commented 25 March 2012 at 19:12

In xah.txt, I left http://drupal.org/node/525912 (Drupal.org CVS applications) published. I'm thinking that probably has old links pointing to it, so the link to the new project applications is still valuable.