may causes conflics with

Can someone delete this project, please?


greggles’s picture

I don't think that makes sense. Couldn't frob just request the same thing happen in reverse?

Maybe you should open an issue in the googleanalytics queue first.

frob’s picture

These projects do not conflict.

Also, if hass fixes issue they will never conflict. Currently hass's project doesn't conform to Drupal's project function naming guidelines.

hass’s picture

Budda made the fault with the project naming. I cannot fix this. Now frob started using a namespace that is used for ages, by one of the most popular contrib module!!! He is breaking 300.000 ga installations intentionally! This is not ok. There was never such a naming rule in the past and this is not a good argument, too.

Module names are unique.

frob’s picture

Budda made the fault with the project naming. I cannot fix this

You can fix this. I am not suggesting that this be fixed in Drupal 7, however, my module will not have a Drupal 7 release.

You can fix this in the Drupal 8 release, there are other modules that have provided upgrade paths from one namespace to another. CCK comes to mind. All you have to do is start using google_analytics.module in the Drupal 8 release.

He is breaking 300.000 ga installations intentionally

Nope, no sites where harmed in the making of this module.

First, there is no (and there will be no) Drupal 7 Release of this module and there is no Drupal 8 branch of google_analytics; therefore, there is no conflict with any site currently on the web. Creating this project was done for two reasons.

  1. To give developers who want to start building with Drupal 8 a functional Google Analytics module; to help promote development on Drupal 8.
  2. To allow me to begin work on a Drupal 8 version of my module (google_analytics_et) which depended on the google_analytics module. A patch was submitted to the google_analytics issue queue that would have started a path to port google_analytics to Drupal 8, however it was rejected as was my request that a Drupal 8 branch be started (stable or not) so work could begin to be done with porting google_analytics to Drupal 8.

There was never such a naming rule in the past and this is not a good argument, too.

It is also not a good argument that google_analytics has been improperly named for a long time. It was bad DX a long time ago, whoever did it first.

Old projects that are used by a large amount of websites that are doing things incorrectly also promotes bad coding by Drupal Beginners.

hass’s picture

Intentionally breaking the upgrade path of ga is not acceptable to me and I guess for 300.000 installations not, too. I may add a hidden upgrade module to ga D8 named googleanalytics.module.

Rename you project e.g. google_analytics_lite

mike stewart’s picture

@hass, it seems to me that @frob has a strong point regarding Drupal8. In January he filed an issue in the googleanalytics issue queue #1903586: Create Drupal8 Branch asking for the creation of a Drupal8 branch. Your response was to change the issue status to postpone until a beta release of Drupal8. The fact that you denied this, without seemly considering the effect on others, has prevented @frob from being able to do his due dilligence as a module maintainer of google_analytics_et -- and has also prevented others from using your module in Drupal8.

From my perspective after reading a the issues, @frob has been open to helping and working with you. Ultimately @hass it seems you forced the issue: and therefore left him no choice on how to move forward with his module.

It seems to me that @frob would like to help you. Regardless, I'd like to see both of you be a bit more cooporative and use less of an adversarial tone in the issue queue.

hass’s picture

Title: Delete conflicting project » Delete conflicting module googleanalytics.module in project googleanalytics (without underscore)

@mike: This is not correct. I never denied to work on a patch and the provided patch is completly broken and incomplete, too. At the time of writing the new config files habe not been committed and so on. Everyone is free to provide a patch for ga. He also never said that he plan to break ga upgrade path for 300.000 installations; if i don't create these branch. It looked more that he understood that nobody like to upgrade two ga versions and we are going to wait for google's new Universal Analytics API to be released to the public. Now I found that he intentionally break ga with his module and don't follow well known module name rules.

The rules he's linking two has a clear statement that this is not for existing modules. A propper name for these new module may be google_analytics_lite. An expierenced developer will also not create a module named "content", "numeric" and so on as CCK is using this namespace for ages. CCK modules are also not prefixed with cck_* like cck_numeric.

frob’s picture

I don't see why this needs the attention of the admins. This is something that we should be able to resolve with no intervention from the d.o admins.

If you want help writing the install hook I can help. But lets start with an issue.

If you start the Drupal 8 branch with the name googe_analytics then there will be no conflict ever, and its not hard to do.
How about some pseudo code.

function google_analytics_install() {
  if(googlanalytics_variable exists) {
    Convert to Content Management Variable

    Delete old D7 Variable

However, none of this belongs here in the admin issue queue. It belongs in the issue queue of one of our modules.

After all the back a forth there is still no Drupal 8 branch in google_analytics and therefore no conflict.

hass’s picture

Rename your module to google_analytics_lite or any other useful name, but never use any name that is used for ages by other stable modules just to try to force someone to change a module name that is used on 300.000 sites for ages, please. You are using an existing namespace that may be used in D8, too. As noted I may not like to explain 300.000 people they need to re-enable the module after the upgrade. I don't need any hook_install code examples from you.

It looks like d.o admins need to be aware of an action like this. We may need additional rules.’s picture

I think it would be beneficial if you could work out your differences outside the webmaster queue.

It would generally benefit everybody if you could join forces to work on a common module.

I consider it highly inconsiderate to create a module that has a namespace that is only different from another by an underscore. The same can be said about not collaborating on an existing module...’s picture

Note: the inconsideration is not only towards the maintainer(s) of the other module but also against all the users of the existing one.

frob’s picture

There is an issue in the google_analytics issue queue to fix the namespace issue. How about we just move the google_analytics module to the googleanalytics name space that will solve both that issue and this issue.

For details:

Then I could just move my project over to a more appropriate namespace. Sorry for the stepping on the namespace, it wasn't intentional, I was just trying to move forward on D8. Thanks to mikestewart for chatting with me on IRC to help resolve this.

hass’s picture

@Gerhard: frob has now created another project named with the same code. He has not renamed as suggested. Do you have permissions to delete a project node and can you delete, please?

frob’s picture

Unless, I missed something I cannot change the project short name for the module. I have offered the googleanalytics namespace to hass in an attempt to resolve issue 4277770.

If hass doesn't want it I have moved my code base to a more appropriate namespace, you can do what you will with the googleanalytics namespace.

hass’s picture

Status: Active » Reviewed & tested by the community
frob’s picture

Priority: Major » Normal
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed
hass’s picture

Priority: Normal » Major
Status: Fixed » Reviewed & tested by the community

It still exists.’s picture

Project: infrastructure » webmasters
Component: module » Project/Git problem
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Active

moving, and I don't think it rtbc

hass’s picture

Status: Active » Reviewed & tested by the community

Both maintainers confirmed it is RTBC.

frob’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs review

No I marked it as "fixed"

I think that this issue is done. I do not think that the module needs to be deleted. I do not think that having both module creates confusion. I think that keeping this issue alive is a distraction and a waist of everyone's time.

If anything I think that this could be a great example to others of what not to do when trying to force an issue.

I don't really care if the project is deleted. I have moved namespaces. I do think that opening up the namespace means that this could potentially happen again and it also removes this as an example of what not to do.

If the moderators reject this proposal then I will not stand in the way of deleting the project being RTBC.

greggles’s picture

Status: Needs review » Fixed

If the project is deleted what will stop someone from creating another one and then we have this fun again.

hass’s picture

Status: Fixed » Needs review

Than at least unpublish the project node. This should block a recreate.

frob’s picture

would that block a recreate? as far as I know that would stop the nid from being used but the url could be used again? I actually have no idea if that would work.

hass’s picture

Yes, you cannot create two url aliases twice.

jthorson’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Status: Needs review » Closed (fixed)

I believe unpublishing the node could actually cause additional confusion. If I were to use drush to download and install the googleanalytics module instead of google_analytics, and be told that no 7.x branch exists, the first thing I'm going to do is visit the project/googleanalytics page ...

... Currently, the page tells me that the googleanalytics namespace is abandoned, and contains links to both google_analytics_lite and google_analytics modules. I see this as a reasonable compromise, and more useful for end users than having 'no' page available at that URL. I've tweaked the text on the abandoned project page somewhat; and am closing this issue as part of the Webmaster queue cleanup sprint.

If either party *really* wants to re-ignite this old argument, then that is their right ... but I would ask that they strongly consider just letting this die. :)