-
Jon Pugh β
committed cab8045b on 2953349-drush9-composer
Issue #3098258: Send the trace to debug drush logs, not error. Do the...
-
Jon Pugh β
committed cab8045b on 2953349-drush9-composer
-
Jon Pugh β
committed d53bddf9 on 2953349-drush9-composer
Issue #3098258: Send the trace to debug drush logs, not error. Do the...
-
Jon Pugh β
committed d53bddf9 on 2953349-drush9-composer
-
Jon Pugh β
committed dde7c0db on 2953349-drush9-composer
Issue #3098258: Send the trace to debug drush logs, not error. Do the...
-
Jon Pugh β
committed dde7c0db on 2953349-drush9-composer
- Status changed to Fixed
over 1 year ago 1:09pm 25 May 2023 - πΊπΈUnited States Jon Pugh Newburgh, NY
Provision 4 now installs by execing drush site install.
- π΅π±Poland memtkmcc
Do we have any reference for the changes committed to Provision 4 and Provision 5 branches?
I have looked in the patches for a few months back and both look like heavily experimental sandboxes without any issues referenced, so they almost look like private repository not intended to be used by the community?
My questions arise since we plan to backport many accumulated patches from our BOA fork to bring the Provision 3 up to speed to fully support both PHP 8.1/8.2 and Drupal 9 and then we considered creating separate branch for the work being done on the Drupal 10 support, which is quite separate effort and can't be continued in the 3.x branch, while changes in 4.x and 5.x look pretty drastic without any documentation to figure out either backward compatibility or at least compatibility matrix -- like supported Drupal core, PHP and Drush versions.
I have already noticed many patches there similar to our attempts to overcome the limits of 3.x branch, so making this work more transparent could certainly help in avoiding reinventing the wheel.
Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.