क्या मुझे अपनी परियोजना में कंट्रोल्ड मॉड्यूल को नियंत्रित करना चाहिए?

Question

मुझे बताया गया है कि विकास करते समय मुझे sites/अपने कोड रिपॉजिटरी (जैसे SVN) के तहत सब कुछ नियंत्रित करना चाहिए ।

मैं योगदान मॉड्यूल (मैं उपयोग के किसी भी स्पर्श मान लें करेंगे कभी नहीं ctools, viewsआदि), लेकिन केवल अपने ही विषय पैदा करेगा, मैं अभी भी है कि क्या करना चाहिए?

या मैं सिर्फ स्रोत के तहत सब कुछ नियंत्रित करना चाहिए sites/all/themes/?

धन्यवाद

Answer 1

In my team, we have moved to only sourcing what is specific to our current project. If we are using Views for example, we add the appropriate entry to our drush make-file, and version that, but not the module itself.

This leaves us with a very small repository, consisting of any custom modules specific to the current site, the current theme, and features exports.

Unless you absolutely can't use drush and drush make, I don't see why one should version control code that is well versioned somewhere else. And if you intend to hack on one of modules, then you should add that as a submodule, again, not versioning the code in your own repo. (I believe this is called a vendor branch in SVN).

Edit: For more details and a more advanced setup, you can take a look at this repository: [e-mail]:letharion/Drupal-build-scripts.git The scripts are written in bash to support my teams workflow which includes a building a base-install profile (NodeStream), then our site-specific profile on top of that, a make file for each profile, hooks for applying patches or making other changes on individual build steps etc. I hope I will find the time to re-write it as a drush extension in the near future.

Comments

Thanks for your detailed explanation. Yes, I do use drush and plan to automate as much as possible. And I don't plan to change any code in core or contrib modules.

— cherouvim

+1 versioning the make file is a great idea, think I'll be doing that in future ;)

— Clive

@Letharion I don't quite understand how this works when developing the same site with various developers at the same time? AFAIK drush make always downloads all dependencies and tries to overwrite sites/default, even if those modules already have been D/L'd, or is there some undocumented option to only download updated/new modules? In other words: I understand the benefit of using Drush make for installing afresh, but how do you use it for keeping module dependencies synced in a distributed team?

— Creynders

I've been using this approach for over a year now but I'm now questioning whether it's really better than just having everything in a repo when working with other developers who may not be re-building the platform every day. Additionally, this approach is not really compatible with the way Acquia structures their repos for their cloud hosting.

— David Meister

Answer 2

As a counter to @Letharion's answer, putting everything in SVN makes sense for some organizations and it really depends on how you do your rollouts. Putting contrib modules and themes in SVN can make sense if you ever need to go "back in time" and look at an old version of a site.

One example of this is handy when you suspect a bug in a contrib module, or are seeing different behavior. Being able to restore a full version from the past can help.

I have also found it handy to have a full site snapshot in SVN when I need to figure out what a client did to a site. I can take a full snapshot of their version, and stick it in SVN as a branch and compare.

Comments

In order to go "back in time" I'd also need the corresponding full database backup as well. Because some settings and configurations are in the DB. Is that right?

— cherouvim

Yes. The Backup and Migrate module and/or drush archive-backup is your friend here.

— mpdonadio

Using this method enables you to clone an entire installation from version control and a backup, which can be very helpful for development or debugging live sites.

— keithm