The page at lists all the modules that have been moved from contrib into core.

Some of these modules have been moved completely from contrib into core, where others have had selected components moved from contrib into core.

Depending on the module, the upgrade path and procedures will differ.

The handbook page should be organized to reflect this, and linked to from within the UPGRADE.TXT file.

If documentation people think this is a good idea, then we can move forward with this.

If documentation people think this is a bad idea, shoot it down in flames!


EvanDonovan’s picture

Project:Drupal core» Documentation
Component:update system» Correction/Clarification

Moving this issue to the Documentation queue, since it is not an issue with Drupal code. Please open a separate ticket in the Drupal queue for linking to this page from UPGRADE.TXT (although it will probably be postponed on #949102: Polish UPGRADE.txt).

bonobo’s picture


Please open a separate ticket in the Drupal queue for linking to this page from UPGRADE.TXT

The top page for this should (IMO) remain so it's already linked from within the file.

This is pretty important information for the D7 release, as many site admins will need to do this, but it shouldn't be a blocker for #949102: Polish UPGRADE.txt

nirbhasa’s picture

Status:Active» Needs review

Ok, I had a go at editing that page. Let me know what you think.

JoshOrndorff’s picture

I looked over the edited page, and it looks good. I'm not super familiar with all of those modules, but after looking at the project pages and some of the issue queues it looks like they are categorized correctly. My only suggestion would be that maybe CCK should be listed in the second category: "Modules that may also be uninstalled, depending on the functionality you require".

Like the note on that page says, CCK will still be a contrib module for node reference and user reference. Of course it also fits the description of being an upgrade path, so maybe it could be in both categories?

Those are just my thoughts. Great work on splitting the list out,

arianek’s picture

Seems on the right track to me - though I'd definitely want a core dev or two to review that list (will see if I can get someone to look at it).

As far as CCK, my understanding is that you *definitely* need it installed when upgrading a site, as it contains the migration code for bringing D6 CCK stuff into D7 (sidenote: we will probably need to write some more extensive documentation on that, I don't think it exists yet).

bonobo’s picture

@arianek re: "sidenote: we will probably need to write some more extensive documentation on that, I don't think it exists yet"

It doesn't; an issue for this is at #941694: Create a handbook page for upgrading from D6 CCK to D7

JoshOrndorff’s picture

I was under the same impression about needing CCK installed to do the upgrade. What wasn't clear to me was weather or not I would still need CCK after I upgraded my fields or not (assuming I don't need node reference or user reference). I guess that will probably be answered when the documentation comes out.

My thinking for my previous comment was that there are several modules in the first category that my be needed for an upgrade, but their functionality (apart from an upgrade path) is fully reproduced in D7 core. That's why I thought maybe CCK should change categories.

It would be great to see a core developer look over the list whenever the time is right. In the meantime, what else can I do here to help move these doc issues along?

arianek’s picture

@bonobo aha, awesome!!! (i'll try and keep an eye on here in case you need any reviews)

i'll keep trying to get one of the really involved core devs to review this...

zirvap’s picture

The list of contrib modules moved into core includes, and that's not a module.

EvanDonovan’s picture

Just created #984444: Page on modules now in core in D7 needs reorganization, table of contents based off a remark about UPGRADE.txt. Maybe these two tasks should be consolidated?

sun’s picture

I already mentioned in IRC that is not really useful. Problem space being:

We've crossed the 100 mark (of modules moved into D7 core) in the meantime, and people are still reporting further modules in the Upgrade Status queue. A few modules were only moved partially. Some need a note or two clarifying minor differences or whatnot. A couple need to link to specific upgrade modules and/or d.o issues, community initiative handbook pages, or similar upgrade tutorials/discussions for major modules.

But most importantly, it takes hours to figure out whether you actually need to do something or not, depending on the site you are upgrading. Clearly, this is a task for a module like Upgrade Status, because it is able to show site administrators only the information they really need to care for, since it can simply evaluate the currently enabled D6 modules to show upgrade information tailored to your site.

EvanDonovan’s picture

@sun, et al.: How about this then?

On, only talk about the most commonly used modules (80/20 principle or something like that), and their upgrade paths. That would allow us to give more detail for things like CCK and its most common contrib add-ons, which should probably be at the top of the page, as per #984444-4: Page on modules now in core in D7 needs reorganization, table of contents.

For the rest, make a recommendation that people download Upgrade Status.

arianek’s picture

Status:Needs review» Needs work

that sounds more reasonable to me evandonovan - i think the concern sun voices is a legitimate one, if there is really that many modules, it will certainly be more info than is useful.

i like the idea in #12 of just outlining in general, and then adding details on any specific needs that relate to very major work items such as the CCK migration.

do note also, that some of those details may be best served by being put with the module's docs and then linked to from this page/section.

EvanDonovan’s picture

@arianek: Linking to the module's documentation would be great, as well (although I think CCK doesn't yet have detailed docs on this?)

So I guess then, in the new way forward, we aren't actually splitting the page further, but rather removing a lot of the module list information from the page, in favor of a cross-reference to Upgrade Status, as well as making the most major upgrade tasks into sections at the top?

arianek’s picture

that sounds like a good plan, in light of sun's comments.

as far as i know there are only really docs for current core d7 modules, as well as the install guide + a semi-finished upgrade guide. so maybe some of this would do well to go in the upgrade guide? - it's in-progress and will be moved to the main docs area once it's done.

but yes, there is a large amount of documentation yet to be written. hopefully some of it will get completed at the docs sprint this saturday! in case anyone wants to join via irc ;)

arianek’s picture

Title:Split the "Drupal 6 contributed modules that are in Drupal 7 core" into two sections» Update core modules review page
Priority:Major» Critical
Issue tags:+d7docs

adding tags, changing title, changing status (to reflect need to document core module changes/upgrade info)

arianek’s picture

Priority:Critical» Major

downgrading task priority