upgrade to Drupal 6.x

For you anything ;o)

I'll try and do it tonight (port for version 1 obviously!)

Pobster

Hey did you know your site is down? Just a blank page???

Pobster

Okay last night I churned the 5.x release through the coder module for 6.x and changed *everything* that come up. I still need to add the node/add/... links to hook_menu_alter but the main body of work for conversion is now done. Not that I've tested it mind ;o) There's probably other stuff that needs tlc as well, I'll test it today some time - watch this space!

Pobster
PS. You definitely need more pictures on your Facebook profile :o)

Well... It semi-works ;o) That's a start! I'm currently having an issue with the table creation page, but most everything else looks okay (nothing particularly thoroughly tested) - I could post up a release without the creation stuff in it if you like? At least you'd be able to display the tables you already have and add/edit them?... Sorry I would be working faster but it seems the bunny picture isn't on offer? :o(

Pobster

Hey if you've any problems with anything Drupal or hosting related - you know how to contact me and you *know* I'm a nerd and can usually sort out these things! You only have to ask ;o)

And well... I tried to update all my modules to 6.x as the conversion in most cases isn't usually all that taxing... Obviously the easiest modules got updated first! ;o) That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!!! Unfortunately with Tablemanager I knew it wasn't going to be easy and I've been putting it off for ages even though one of my own sites relies heavily on it as well (which is indeed why the module exists in the first place!)

So... What can I get for a semi-working tablemanager then?

Pobster

Bugger it's not good news I'm afraid, this is proving to be more difficult that I thought... I *may* try a different tact and write tablemanager v1.5 ;o) I've already got a nice update script to alter your db tables to the new tablemanager v2 and I've got a working display function/ input filter at least... Only problem is... The update script hasn't been tested on large tables... How big are your tables??? In rows? I'm concerned that the update script may time out if it takes too long is all, but as I've nothing large to test it with I'm unsure how Drupal will handle it.

Pobster

Busy? Yes... Too busy for you? Never! ;o) Obviously (as this reply proves) the whole different timezone thing might be a problem, but I'm always here to help when I'm awake.

I've been messing around with a couple of things this morning and I think I may have figured a couple of things out with the original 5.x version - conversion, so I might not have to start messing around with db schema just yet... I'll let you know how it goes, although obviously now being a week day - work comes first!

Pobster

Hello!

Yep no problem, if it all goes horribly wrong - send out the nerd signal and I'll come running ;o)

Mehhhhh I didn't particularly want to fix branch 1.x for any Drupal release, I really, really wanted to get branch 2.x up and running - it's *such* a better idea in the way it works, I'm sure it'll encourage people to write their own 'entry types' via .inc files as they'll be really simple to do and slot-able (so you'll just copy the example one, alter it to do whatever you want it to do and save it, and... that's it, it'll be available for you to use!)

Also, funny you should mention about the query generator - I installed views 6.x (alpha 3) just yesterday and that has a sort of query generator. I thought it looks amazing! I'm going to try and integrate one of my own if I can...

As for my progress, well... I've done the table add function which was my main worry, the filter works, the row adding/ editing/ deleting works, the table listings page works... And... Nothing much else does ;o) That's including the table display routine, which is just bizarre because it shouldn't really need changing? I'm perplexed as to what it's doing (repeating rows, adding LOTS of 'edit' and 'delete' links after rows not just once...) I'd hate to have to rewrite the whole function, that'd be a nightmare... I'm sure I'll get it fixed soon hopefully! Oddly, the column delete problem that's plagued 5.x shouldn't be a problem with 6.x due to the changes to the form API. Okay so I haven't got that far yet... But I'm not anticipating a problem any way ;o) I've always begrudged fixing that problem as a change to Drupal core broke it in the first place - grrrr!

As for the 2.x branch being better, yeah it should be as now you can define your data entry specifically so I could in theory give an option to disable input filters altogether as every entry is validated. I'm just a little dubious about people not realising exactly how important it is to validate things correctly... I'd hate to have someone blame me for some cross site scripting hacking which isn't my fault... I guess as long as I make sure the instructions are particularly clear then I shouldn't have any problems.

Watch this space!

Pobster
edit: I've added the 'Table 1: Pobsters table of superheroes" type display for the admin page, thanks for that - looks great!

Just to let you know... The display function wasn't broken at all... For whatever reason my db collation had changed to Swedish and so the import of tablemanager data had failed (£ was showing as ? and so the rows affected wouldn't unserialize). It's all fine :o)

Pobster

Yeah that's exactly what I mean and it's part of the reason why I haven't made a release of version 2 yet... I'm not a professional programmer and so I really want to make sure as best I can that I've plugged as many possible security holes as I can with this. I want it to be as easy as possible for someone with limited php skills to be able to take the example entry_form.inc file and create their own entry type without having to worry about it being security flawed. The reason there's not even a dev release of the 2.x branch yet is because I *keep* changing the schema, all the time I'm thinking 'perhaps its better to do it like... this' and while I'm not bothered about writing clean update code, it's a waste of my time to have to keep on doing it. I think I'll probably put out an unfinished dev the second I'm sure I've settled on the schema.

The branch 1.x update is nearly finished I guess, all that needs doing is form validation (so far there's none whatsoever), the table editing function and the CSV import/ export function. I might as well finish it now, I must have spent two and half full hours on it so far! :o)

Pobster

I love this module, unfortunately I require the Import CSV function :-( Any ETA on the fix or is it being put off to focus on 2.x?

Isn't it already working???? I thought the last release I made had both import and export of csv?

Pobster

Hmmm, it's probably something I am doing wrong then, lol. When I import, it all goes on 1 line. When I try to delete the table, I get:

warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/rjmw4384/public_html/pubmasters/sites/all/modules/tablemanager/tablemanager.admin.inc on line 105.

Sometimes it'll work (deleting) and I'll get this on the Delete confirmation page:

warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/rjmw4384/public_html/pubmasters/sites/all/modules/tablemanager/tablemanager.module on line 612.

I'm still extremely new to Drupal so I am most likely doing something wrong here. I apologize, I'll keep playing with it.

The csv doesn't particularly do any error checking, it's likely that your csv is wrong? Why don't you post it here and I'll take a look? Or... If it's important, use my contact form and send it to me to look at. The only reason it'd all be on one line is if there's aren't any carriage returns separating the rows?

...It's difficult for me to debug as I've got a newer version of Tablemanager here, which has got a couple of bugs in it that I wanted to iron out before I committed it to the repository. Mind you... I haven't touched it in over a week...

...Maybe I'll just post up this version, I did fix a couple of bugs present it the current version - I forget what they were now.

Pobster

These are the first few lines of what I pasted into the "Paste CSV Here" box. I only removed the player's first and last names for privacy reasons. I also tried uploading the CSV data instead of pasting, ran into the same issue.

First,Nick Name,Last,Events Played,Cups Won,PM's Won,Avg. Finish,Avg. Poker,Avg. Darts,Avg. Pool,Avg. B.H,Avg. Foos,Titles,VI?,Food/Booze or ALL-IN
,'The Hairy Alien',,"""I, III, IV,V""",4,0,6.25,8.25,10.75,6.75,6,1,4x & Defending FBC,Yes,All-In
,'The Latin Assassin',,"""IV,V""",0,0,14,15.5,10,11,10.5,15.5,Returning Player,Yes,?
,'Rookie',,VI,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,©ookie,Yes,?
,'Feed me the Rye!',,"""IV,V""",0,0,6,7,9.5,5.75,6,9,Returning Player,Yes,?
,'Twinkle',,IV,0,0,20,11,18,16,14,20,Returning Player,Yes,?
,'Rookie',,VI,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,©ookie,Yes,?

Something just hit me, could my WYSIWYG editor OR Input Format be causing the issue?

*cries*

Tried it 3 times with the WYSIWYG editor turned off. First 2 gave me the same issue as before, 3rd time it worked.

Obviously something I was doing wrong! lol

Thanks so much for your support, I can't wait for the new version of the module, it's a life saver!

Yes! That's likely the problem, your WYSIWYG is probably inserting <p> tags in your code all over the place! Try using it in 'source' mode (or disabling it for that page).

I've just uploaded the newest version which doesn't really introduce any new functionality, only a lot more unfinished functions! There are a few bug fixes though so it might be worth updating if you still have no luck?

Pobster

Awesome, I'll update even though I got it working, I like a challenge! :-)

Wow, love the update, it fixed quite a few of the error messages I was getting.

Thanks again!

*bump*

Any news on 6.x-1.x? In fact, any news on 6.x-2.x? Do you need help with this? =)

Just have limited spare time I'm afraid... Although... I'd probably ditch the 6.x-1.x version if I did have the time as I've never really been interested in progressing with the 1.x branch. That said... There's a few outstanding issues which I would need to be ironed out even for the 2.x branch if you're interested in helping?... Here's a list (from memory bearing in mind that I haven't touched it in about four months?!)

1. Hook_menu_alter in tablemanager.module doesn't seem to work as it's supposed to... Only superuser can view node/add entries, it seems to require the link to be a proper 'node' entry screen else it just doesn't work? Not sure... Maybe I'm just not doing it right? I never did bother to look into it properly though, as only I enter my own tables it's not an issue for any of my installations.
2. includes/table.inc - The whole tabledrag thing doesn't work, just errors out. I really tried with this... Followed loads of examples, read loads of stuff about it... But I could never work out why the rows don't drag and because they didn't drag I've never been able to finish the code which deals with altering/ adding new columns.
3. modules/css/*** - Never really had a clue where I was going with this... Need to finish it and actually implement the display function importing the matching css file. Would appreciate help with what parameters table have as I can't seem to find a definitive list of *everything* which is applicable?

I forget what else, but tbh it was these few issues which kept everything else from progressing. (Incidentally the css module may only be available in HEAD, I forget...) I asked a few questions in the forums, bumped them... But no-one offered to help... I lost interest... Then work got in the way... And now here we are four months on with no progress!

If you want to help then that would be FANTASTIC!

Thanks,

Pobster

Well, we will be needing a decent table handler for our project, one of the team tried out your module for 5.x and we like it. So if you don't have time to port it to 6.x, I guess we'll have to! ;-)

And we can do a 6.x-2.x release while we're about it. It won't be for a few weeks, but I'll schedule someone in to do this.

Heh funny I just applied for a (Drupal) programming job at BigKid ;o) Didn't get a phonecall back for an interview, guess I haven't been successful then! ...It's not for them is it?!?!! That'd be so ironic!

I'd dearly love to take a month off work and finish all my projects, I'm working some 20 hour days some days at the moment. Spare time is rare commodity! I love my modules!

Pobster

I just came across your module and am just wondering if you have any new information about the timing of this upgrade? Thanks.

Hi rmassamiri, pobster,

This is still on our list - we still need it, but it's a "nice to have" ... it's the last thing we'll be working on. But so you know, this job is in our development backlog, since pobster has said he's happy to commit a 6.x version if we build it.

Thanks for bringing it back to my attention! =)

Hmm, this just got postponed again in our development planning meeting. Don't hold your breath, guys. If someone else is better placed to take this, they should.

Btw, @pobster ... seen this? http://api.drupal.org/api/function/drupal_add_tabledrag

Ps - shouldn't this be a "task" ...?

is it save to use tablemanager-6.x-1.x-dev ?

You can use it, but it doesn't allow for use by any users other than your administrative user. Just to warn you, I'm dropping that version and planning on rewriting it soon(-ish) don't worry though, it'll be upgradable from the current version. I have a different plan of attack with this module now...

Pobster

any news on porting it to drupal 6. I am currently using drupal 6, and your module perfectly matches my need. I need to add library_books table, everyone can view and our admin person will be able to update it. Thanks for creating this module, is just does the job perfectly, and I think at one point everybody creating a site with drupal, ends up with need for this.

subscribing

Subscribe

+1

Subscribing

Anyone who is anxious for the 6.x port might want to know that tablemanager-6.x-1.x-dev appears to be quite usable in its current form, assuming your requirements are simple. I was very pleased to find only the following issues: User 1 access to table management only, sorting functionality is not yet working, the ability to edit column headers is broken and errors are generated in the header of the admin page. None of these are showstoppers for me by any means, so I thought I'd share.

Of course, there's no way to tell if any given table data created with this version will actually survive an upgrade once the module gets ported properly.

Hmmm that's interesting, sorting functionality works for me? I'm aware of all the other stuff though, I've just not had time to work on anything of my own lately...

And don't worry about any future upgrade paths, as part of something I'm doing for work I've studied the batch API so I'll likely use that for upgrading meaning any amount of row conversions can take place.

Pobster

Hmmm that's interesting, sorting functionality works for me? I'm aware of all the other stuff though, I've just not had time to work on anything of my own lately...

I think the sorting thing may only apply to existing tables that were not configured to sort in the first place (similar to the header editing problem) but I would have to retest to be sure. Edited to add: Yes, this is confirmed. After the creation of a table, it is not possible to edit header values or sorting behavior.

And don't worry about any future upgrade paths, as part of something I'm doing for work I've studied the batch API so I'll likely use that for upgrading meaning any amount of row conversions can take place.

That's terrific! I wasn't certain if I would go forward or hold off yesterday, but it actually sounds safe.

Compliments once again - brilliant work.

Bumping to check in. How's it coming? Not to be a nudge, I realize this is all in your spare time.

Another bump... this is exactly what I need. Thanks for your work on it. Any ETA or should we not get our hopes up? (BTW... great to hear you are busy in the down economy!)

For a basic core implementation, I think Tablemanager_v2 only needs say - two more (full) weeks of work? It's hard to estimate tbh as I've not looked at it in so long, but from memory - yeah two weeks sounds about right. As for when I can find those two weeks... I really can't tell you - paid work comes first and I have a little of that on at the moment (obviously it always comes first) plus the one site I have which uses Tablemanager is still using Drupal 5, so I don't actually *need* Tablemanager 6.x myself...

...Plus I'm just plain busy lately! I can't seem to find time for anything...

So, already completed is like;

Core - 70%-ish
Admin - 90%
Conversion (from old tables) - 100%
CSS - 35% (P.O.C.)
Cloner - 100%
List - Now using Views - 50%
CSV - 0% haven't yet touched it...

Pobster

Thanks for the update pobster...

there has been some discussion on this thread - http://drupal.org/node/599722 - about current and future status / plans for the Table Manager module that should be going on here instead.

as many on this thread no doubt realize, we are 22 mths into D6 with still no official release of a TableManager version - and there appears to be little or no work being done to change that situation. Save for one commit in Aug '09, there's been no commits to the module since Apr 2008 - that's 18 mths ago.

moreover, the D6 .dev version doesn't really work properly - some 'advertised' functionality doesn't do anything (e.g., save button on edit table screen doesn't actually save anything). by 'advertised', i mean functionality that appears to be present by virtue of screen configurations, but that doesn't work in practice. despite the drawbacks, the .dev does work in a fashion and does some very useful things, sufficiently so that 250+ people are using it on sites.

i am new to the module, but keenly interested to utilize the functionality for my sites. However, i am hesitant to adopt it fully given current status of D6 versions and in light of rapidly approaching release of D7. I imagine many current users of TM would prefer to see stable D6 version released, too.

at least two of us users - amariotti + myself - are offering to pay for reworking of current .dev into more stable version. see this thread: http://drupal.org/node/611828. please advise us if this effort is of interest to you - obviously we would welcome additional funders or contributors.

unfortunately, in trying to rework the .dev, we are finding that simple tweaks are unlikely to really solve the problems and that a more comprehensive rebuild of the module may be required to successfully achieve the 'advertised' functionality. as i understand it, these difficulties relate in part to the fact that the module code base has not really been fully overhauled as each new generation of drupal has been released -- meaning the code was originally built for D4, was finagled to work in D5, but won't really work with D6. One assumes that the fit for D7 won't be any better. But i am not a developer, so if there are questions about the technical issues, the developer we have been working with, snufkin, can provides further details.

once we start down this path of a larger remodeling of the code, then it begs larger questions about official D6 releases, D7 growth plans, additional ideas for features and functionality, etc.

the maintainer, pobster, tells us that much of the larger rework we might have in mind is part of his vision for the 2.x branch of the module - and that he has already built out much of this functionality. see #46 on this thread for status. this 2.x branch was first mentioned on this thread as long ago as March 2008 and the #46 update is from July 09 with no apparent progress since. pobster credits this delay to lack of time.

however, from the http://drupal.org/node/599722 thread, we have learned there may also significant legal issues with the 2.x code. as i understand it, the code for the 2.x version is actually working on client sites of pobster's and has been for ~1 yr or longer. this raises questions about whether that code can be reused for public release on drupal.org under GPL.

latest is that we have requested that pobster clarify the legal status of the module code and to clarify his other plans for the module. if legal status can be resolved, perhaps that code can be used on d.o.,, but then we run into issues of paul's availability to finalize it. if legal status can't be resolved, then we'd need to independently refashion the module code (if there is sufficient interest from the user base). As yet, it is unknown how much effort this would be, but we have asked snufkin to provide an estimate.

feedback from other module users is welcome.

Regarding legal issues, there are none - once the module is released on the GPL, it is part of the license that if it is re-used and modified, if someone asks to see the modifications the modifiers cannot reasonably refuse. E.g. you can't just take a module off and do loads of work on it and not publish back.

IN THEORY.

However, the only people who can insist this code is published back are the maintainers. So if pobster wants to publish the code, he can just publish it - the license it was initially released under, by him, allows him to do so with impunity. The sticking point might be he doesn't want to piss off his clients, even though there's nothing they can do about it and they're EVIL LEECHES if they're forcing him to not post the code.

as i understand, there is no obligation to post modified code back. In a case like this where there are very significant modifications made to the original code to the extent that the new code bears little resemblance to the original code, except that it performs certain similar user functions, then i wonder whether that new code is any longer bound by the GPL?

seems especially questionable in this case since the code was developed under contract for a client, not in pobster's free time, where that work probably carried with it some limitations on intellectual property developed. in my experience, if you don't tell somebody before the fact that code they are paying to be developed is going to be released under GPL, you can't easily release it after the fact. as well, the fact that no part of this new code has ever been made available on d.o., either prior to or in the 12+ mths since it was created, surely can't help make the case that it should be covered under GPL now.

in any event, it is up to pobster to sort out the issue to his satisfaction and release if it can be released. the fact that a year has gone by since he first became aware of the issue isn't a great sign.

Well if it was developed and posted under GPL without the copyright holder's knowledge, that's a different story. But if it was GPL to start with and someone modified it, yes they ARE obligated to publish back if they're using it in the public arena - if I read this correctly:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods

If it's being used internally (say, an intranet) then different rules apply.

Either way, it's still leeching off the community to work on a module and not release it back, regardless of obligation. It shows a total lack of regard for and understanding of the open source model.

yes, that's interesting - thank you. it seems to indicate re-released is more of an obligation, than a choice.

but i think much would hinge on the definition of 'modified'. does re-writing something essentially from scratch, as i'm told was done with the 2.x version, constitute a 'modified' version or something entirely 'new' ?

and the issue of whether a client may have paid for the development of the code with the understandable expectation that they would have rights to it further complicates things.

i don't personally know the 'right' answer, but it feels like we could spend as much time debating the issue and coming to definitive conclusion as it might take to re-write the software from scratch.

and, again, it is moot without pobster being on board and providing the software which, it appears, he has been reluctant to do.

I've been using this module for a good part of the last two years and am also a little disappointed that there has been no activity on a 6.x-2.x version. I've hired pobster, if I remember correctly, to do some changes to the permissions on the 6.x-dev that helped temporarily solve an issue we had.

After reading through the discussion above it is a little frustrating to not get the support of the maintainer. As greg.harvey stated, "It shows a total lack of regard for and understanding of the open source model." Some work needs to be done, and it needs to be done soon. We're doing OK with the current state of the module, but there are some things that are not working that should. If we can get some pobster's cooperation then that would be great.... otherwise we'll need to go for a different route.

The more support we can get from other parties interested in the progress of this module the better. This module has some great potential to be even better with CCK and Views integration, which is one of the improvements that we have in mind.

Wow... Look at all this shit? Why have you made all these assumptions and just... RAN wild with them? Have I ever made any comment that the 2.x would never see the light of day? No... I haven't... And what a ridiculous notion that *any* code I write is under GPL??? If I write something from scratch (which is what a rewrite is btw) then it is not covered under the GPL unless I package it that way, if I write it for my company then it 'belongs' to my company. There's no ifs or buts, I'm not going to jeopardise my employment am I? However, that rewrite was for 5.x and the 6.x branch is sufficiently different for me to probably get away with not asking at all - it's only common courtesy making me ask, the likely answer is that they really don't care, the support contract runs out at the end of this year anyway. You've painted this ridiculous picture that a team of legal experts is tying my hands and that I've given up all hope. You should write fiction novels - I don't know where you get these ideas from... I've certainly never said that. All I said (or meant by what I said) is that during the development stages I've left the code out of CVS but for TWO REASONS;

1. People use DEV projects not realising that DEV stands for development, I've learnt my lesson with the 1.x branch here; so often in issue queues I've had to write time and time again, 'the module has never been broken, it's just not finished - the code has not yet been written...'
2. I should at least ask how bothered my work are about ... SCHEMA and like, two functions which I could just as easily rewrite... They're like the broadcast arm of the BBC - they're not going to care at all?

And now you're saying you don't have the support of the maintainer?? 'Temporarily solving an issue'??? 'Without Pobster being on board'??? I'm certainly not on board now - write your own Tablemanager module... If you were trying to offend me then congratulations you've succeeded. Andrew you booked my time for some work, I gave you a time scale and an estimate and I fulfilled that 'contract' - is there a problem with the code I wrote? Why was the work only temporarily solving an issue, if it has a bug you only had to point it out and I'd have fixed it as part of the money you'd paid previously. John - it was my birthday on Wednesday, hence I didn't have time last week to spare for doing any work for you, we were away over the weekend as well as well, it was my birthday and we drove around 500 miles visiting both sets of our parents because... It was my birthday and they couldn't get to see us as we live so far away. Yet I gave you a time scale and estimation, I quoted for that work and you chose not to wait and hire someone else who evidently couldn't finish what you wanted. Yes the module needs remodelling, that's why there's a 2.x branch but it doesn't need remodelling to implement the code you wanted - did I quote any remodelling time for you? No, I think I quoted a day or just over which you were welcome to have when I have the time to spare.

You seem to be under the impression that I have all this spare time which I choose not to spend programming for Drupal??? I've no idea why you think this and I don't know why I'm having to explain myself at all but anyway... I travel slightly over 100 miles a day on a moped into London every week day, I don't get home and settled in the evenings until half eight at the very earliest, added to that I often have to do work at home because Sales at work have a habit of halving estimates we give.

Pobster

@pobster: Glad you're about! =)

Personally, I was speaking about GPL in general (and misconceptions surrounding it) not about your specifics. If you re-read, you'll find I said once something is based on something already released under the GPL then, IN THEORY, changes in public use could have their release required by the "owner", normally (though not always) the maintainer. Just general hypothetical chat about GPL. I didn't even use the name "pobster" or the words "table" or "manager" at all in #49 and #51. ;-)

One thing I would note though, which you're probably aware of, but just in case:

Since the context was Table Manager, you did release it under the GPL by putting it on Drupal.org - that's the terms of release on here that we maintainers have to accept and the packager includes the license with our code, whether we like it or not. Most times it has no effect, as, you rightly point out, the maintainer (or their sponsor, depending on contracts, etc.) will always own the copyright and only the "owner" of the code (be it developer or company) is ever permitted to insist on the release of changes they know have been made to their code, are in public use yet have not been released back. In other words, it's academic as long as you are the legal owner.

But it could make for interesting situations. For example, my company made a module for another company, call them Company A, and Company A own the code under the contract, but agree it can be released on d.o under the GPL. Later I make changes to that module for Company B to use on their public-facing website, but Company B don't want those changes to be contributed. In theory, since the application is public-facing, Company A could insist Company B allow my company to release the update. Which could get ugly.

But anyway, I'm still rambling on about GPL. I find it fascinating, all this stuff.

Glad you're back, hope Table Manager is still a flag you're flying, ping me if I can help, as I said earlier in the thread (though our immediate business need has gone away, it's still a cool module). =)

Pobster:

I apologize if I've offended you. I am new to the module and simply looking at the raw facts trying to make a decision as to whether or not this module is something I can hang my hat on going forward. It has some great raw functionality that is unmatched elsewhere in Drupal, but it is very rough around the edges and development has, to the outside observer, stalled out.

D6 was released in January 2008. This thread was started on March 14, 2008. You first mention the 2.x branch on March 17, 2008. It is November 3, 2009. D7 is around the corner.

I can easily and well understand that you have a lot of other stuff to do - you are not alone, everyone has a lot to do. But, if you have such demands, why not enlist some others to assist you? Why not post to find another co-maintainer to help you? Why not solicit some funds from your users to help pay for the work? Why not embrace the offers of Andrew and myself and Greg Harvey to help you? At least two of us are bringing money to the table to help cover costs.

In my opinion, you are holding this module too close to the chest, trying to do it all yourself. Having built out a great module and established a community of users, you can't just leave them hanging like this. Well, you can, but it isn't the best idea. It leads to shit like this.

I think that if you are willing to open things up a bit, you will find that there are a goodly number of people who want to assist you in moving forward. I hope you will want to do that.

pobster,

I understand why you feel that way. That was never our intention. I had to take a minute and glance through our back-and-forth e-mails from July-August when you made the permission changes for us in TM 6.x-1.x-dev.

Andrew you booked my time for some work, I gave you a time scale and an estimate and I fulfilled that 'contract' - is there a problem with the code I wrote? Why was the work only temporarily solving an issue, if it has a bug you only had to point it out and I'd have fixed it as part of the money you'd paid previously.

In response to your comment above: No, there was no problem with the code that you wrote. By getting involved here I'm not implying that what you did was insufficient, I am simply stating that the support for the future 2.x branch is not present. Even in some of our e-mails you stated that you would need the 2.x branch with in a few months. I know what it's like to be busy, I've got 2 kids and a wife with a broken foot that can't be fixed until December. We moved over the weekend and it's been nothing but chaos. Rather than turning this into an argument let's just see what we can do about getting the 2.x branch out. We have found somebody that has offered to help, and has constructed a roadmap (or will soon) of what could happen to get there.

Lastly, in reference to the dev version being broken... sorry if I ever referred to it as "broken." I guess just getting a stable version with all of the features is what I meant to say.

I appreciate the work that you have done on this module, and the prompt changes that you made for us to the module a few months back. It sure has helped me out since then!

in light of messy situation we find ourselves in, I have posted an issue on d.o. webmasters seeking guidance.

http://drupal.org/node/623482

please visit and offer whatever ideas or comments you have.

i have used the terminology of 'abandoned module' there because the abandoned modules policy appears closest to our circumstances.

It's a messy situation of your own making. The only reason I haven't replied sooner is that I've been so angry nothing I've written has been calm enough to post.

I will not provide a roadmap, this isn't a 'bought' module - I'm under no obligation to anyone, if you read other threads you'll know how close the 2.x branch is to completion, it's just that it's low priority for me. I'm not going to finish it simply to satisfy a project you're being paid to complete. After your developer wimped out why didn't you consider that I'd already given estimates for completion of the 1.x branch, the only reason I couldn't do it was that I had some things planned around my birthday. ...There was always the option of ... waiting? It wasn't a time limited offer...

Now you make me feel like deleting all my work on here and telling the open source community to stick it.

i have used the terminology of 'abandoned module' there because the abandoned modules policy appears closest to our circumstances.

I apologise that my decision to not put the 2.x on CVS has offended you in any way but I'm fed up of people using DEV code and expecting it to be fully functioning. That's why there's old issues in this issue queue, because they're no longer relevant to code I'm developing but I can't close them yet because the 1.x branch is the only one available.

Pobster

I think everyone should and indeed do recognize that this unique module is firmly an original, intellectual creation of pobster, and we are all thankful I'm sure for you working so tirelessly in what little spare time you have, to save ours :-) As a newbie, I thought open source work is supposed to denote the noble qualities of invention, cooperation and collaboration, and I hope we can pick things up again in this spirit. (Thanks pobster, we really do appreciate you!), just downloaded tablemanager 6.x-1.x-dev for my address book ;-) Cheers!

Pobster did release this module under GPL the moment he uploaded the module to this site.

But i dont see where some of you got the stupid idea that he now has to publish anything he changes to his program here.

He grands us this program under the GPL license, and that does indeed mean that if you want to sell or publish this program anywhere you must publish the sourcecode free of charge. It is a gift from him to us, and anyone that accepts the gift is bound by the rules of GPL.

But Popster is an exeption to that rule because he owns this code. He is not bound by GPL because the code is his own. He is free to sell/give away this code (modified or not) under any other license of his choosing.

participants in this thread might be interested in these related new threads: http://drupal.org/node/772790, http://drupal.org/node/772792

Drupal 6 is no longer officially supported. If you think this issue is still relevant for 8.x, feel free to re-open.

There's no D7 or D8 versions of this module as it can all be achieved using either a WYSIWYG editor or standard content and Views.

I've only really left the module open as there still seems to be a bunch of people using the D6 release?!!! But yeah, maybe the time has come to deprecate it for good.