Problem

The last release of the module is 2 years old, and there were many fixes and changes since that release. So often we have to recommend that users update to the latest dev.

Comments

Novitsh’s picture

+1
Can't agree more. Issues like #1269076: Translated title_field replaces node->title with translated value which are more critical are fixed in dev.

Kevin Davison’s picture

The fact this module is still in alpha means my organization won't add it to our set of available modules, and it's pretty crucial for entity_translation (which is also in beta still). Keep up the great work! I know it's voluntary (unless we can get this funded?)

rgristroph’s picture

I second this.

DamienMcKenna’s picture

Title: Please create a new release! » Plan for Title 7.x-1.0 release
Component: Code » Miscellaneous
Category: Task » Plan

Lets standardize the issue title and change it to a Plan issue.

Anything that should be included in a stable 1.0 release should have this issue added as its parent.

mattew’s picture

I think that everything fixed in dev should be included, or it will be confusing regarding the commit dates on dev and the 1.0 release date.

A such big difference between last recommended release date and last dev date should not exists, and above all Drupal modules should not stay for years on an alpha stage if the dev version is maintained, mainly because only the stable releases get Security Advisories (read more here).

DamienMcKenna’s picture

@mattew: The -dev releases are built from the branches, so when one of those branches is tagged then, by definition, it'll include everything previously available in that branch's -dev release.

mattew’s picture

Yes, that's what I thought, so no need to link other issues to this one to go on for the 1.0! ;)

nico.knaepen’s picture

Also issue https://www.drupal.org/node/1991712 is an important one to consider as a part of the new release.

DamienMcKenna’s picture

@nico.knaepen: #1991712 has already been committed, so yes it'd be in a 1.0 release.

Liam Morland’s picture

The University of Waterloo has been running the latest -dev for months and it is working for us. I think the current -dev should be tagged as the release. Further changes can go into 1.1.

Liam Morland’s picture

At the very least, the current 7.x-1.x should be released as -alpha8 to get more people testing it.

drupov’s picture

#11 sounds very reasonable.

plach’s picture

#11 makes sense to me, I'll roll a new alpha as soon as I have a moment.

sylus’s picture

Just chiming in that have been using the latest 7.x-1.x for months as well as an added data point.

Also agree should be tagged :)

jsacksick’s picture

Any update regarding this famous alpha8 tag? I've been using the dev release of the title module in severall projects.

sylus’s picture

So as it has been 3 months, should we escalate the issue? I could ask to become a co-maintainer as really want a tagged release, not sure what the best next step would be?

Liam Morland’s picture

I suggest you have a look at "Dealing with unsupported (abandoned) projects". You could also contact plach directly and offer your help.

sylus’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

New release is out tagged as 1.0-alpha8 so closing this issue out ^_^

[#2695513]

DamienMcKenna’s picture

Title: Plan for Title 7.x-1.0 release » Plan for Title 7.x-1.0-alpha8 release

@sylus: Awesome, thanks.

Lets rename this issue and create another one for the next release.

roball’s picture

Which version will be the next release? 7.x-1.0-beta1 or the final 7.x-1.0, after so many years in alpha state?

plach’s picture

It entirely depends on whether the various major/critical bugs we have (and fixing which may imply heavy architectural changes) are fixed in the next release. We should probably start to use the beta blocker tag.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

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