Promote non-stable modules to the top of the list at admin/modules/uninstall form

I think only "only deprecated and obsolete module are promoted." - since this is what you are likely to want to uninstall.

I think only "only deprecated and obsolete module are promoted." - since this is what you are likely to want to uninstall.

Agreed, let's put this back to NW.

Agreed. The original intention of my proposal was to promote the things you're most likely to want/need to uninstall to the top. That'd be only deprecated and obsolete, not experimental.

Not sure if I should work on the patch now, or save my RTBC-ability... ;)

Not sure if I should work on the patch now, or save my RTBC-ability... ;)

Keep it please hahaha, I was taking a look here and I think I can help, here's a new patch that excludes the obsolete and look just at the deprecated and obsolete lifecycles.

Thanks @murilohp!

Confirmed from a visual inspection that the most recent patch by @murilohp is pretty much the same as the previous one by @andregp, with the key difference being, as described, sorting only by deprecated and obsolete.

I haven't tested that patch locally, but I did test the previous one, and since all the tests are passing, I'm happy to give a +1 to it.

@dww if you're also happy with it then I think we're good to go to RTBC :)

I do wonder if we need a change record or something for the release notes though?

Confirmed applying the patch #34 is sorting my deprecated modules.
Tested with Activity tracker and Media Library Theme Reset

Think a simple change record would be nice to just announce "hey modules are now sorted differently"

Think this can go to RTBC after that.

Hey @smustgrave, I've added a new CR, moving back to NR.

Thanks!

I don't think issue needs a change record because there is no action required from our users. Users who are interested about changes on this level would likely follow the commits / issue queue.

Committed 642c614 and pushed to 10.1.x. Thanks!

I'm wondering if we should backport this to 10.0.x and 9.5.x. This seems like a low risk usability improvement to backport, but I could see how there could be a very low chance of tripping some automated tests.

Discussed with @alexpott and @catch on Slack and we agreed to backport this to 10.0.x and 9.5.x as a non-disruptive UX improvement.

Fabulous, thanks everyone!

Great to see this get in! Thanks everyone!

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