[Policy] Deprecate History module in D10 and move to contrib in D11

Created on 24 January 2023, almost 2 years ago

Idea summary

What is the problem to solve?

Make core more maintainable by removing modules that do not provide foundational capability or strategic value for the product roadmap.

History is currently used on 76% of sites, which is low, because it is a part of the Standard profile. It is also a frequent cause of database bloat.

Result: what will be the outcome?

A smaller, more maintainable codebase that focuses resources on foundational capabilities and the strategic roadmap, with smaller database storage requirements on many sites.

How can we know the desired result is achieved?

The module is moved to contrib.

🌱 Plan
Status

RTBC

Component

Idea

Created by

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States xjm

Live updates comments and jobs are added and updated live.
  • Needs product manager review

    It is used to alert the product manager core committer(s) that an issue represents a significant new feature, UI change, or change to the "user experience" of Drupal, and their signoff is needed. If an issue significantly affects the usability of Drupal, use Needs usability review instead (see the governance policy draft for more information).

  • Needs framework manager review

    It is used to alert the framework manager core committer(s) that an issue significantly impacts (or has the potential to impact) multiple subsystems or represents a significant change or addition in architecture or public APIs, and their signoff is needed (see the governance policy draft for more information). If an issue significantly impacts only one subsystem, use Needs subsystem maintainer review instead, and make sure the issue component is set to the correct subsystem.

  • Needs release manager review

    It is used to alert the release manager core committer(s) that an issue significantly affects the overall technical debt or release timeline of Drupal, and their signoff is needed. See the governance policy draft for more information.

  • Needs subsystem maintainer review

    It is used to alert the maintainer(s) of a particular core subsystem that an issue significantly impacts their subsystem, and their signoff is needed (see the governance policy draft for more information). Also, if you use this tag, make sure the issue component is set to the correct subsystem. If an issue significantly impacts more than one subsystem, use needs framework manager review instead.

Sign in to follow issues

Comments & Activities

  • Issue created by @xjm
  • πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States xjm

    @andypost is the maintainer for History, so he should be given an opportunity to provide feedback before this is committed.

    The committer team recently reviewed our scoring exercise on all core modules. There is a reasonably strong consensus that History is neither a foundational capability nor strategically valuable to the product roadmap, so it should be moved to contrib. I am marking RTBC, but leaving the tags on to give maintainers a chance to confirm that they agree.

  • πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States xjm

    Actually marking RTBC, and fixing parent.

  • Status changed to Needs review almost 2 years ago
  • πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States xjm

    Sounds like this one could actually use further discussion. Points raised were:

    1. It's more useful than the other modules on the list for D11 removal.
    2. It's entangled with Comment architecturally.
    3. It is "used" (or at least installed) on 75% of sites currently (due to being in Standard). Whether or not they actually rely on the functionality is harder to say.
  • πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊAustralia larowlan πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊπŸ.au GMT+10

    From a framework manager point of view, I'm happy for it to be moved to contrib. It isn't a feature needed unless you're building a community site. Not removing the tag as giving others a chance to chime in.

  • πŸ‡«πŸ‡·France andypost

    As maintainer I'm ++ for move to contrib as the module "wired" into comment/tracker/forum at least and it's hard to make it work with other entities.

    Contrib has less requirements and could iterate faster in 2.x branch

  • πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§United Kingdom AaronMcHale Edinburgh, Scotland

    Speaking as the person who filed πŸ“Œ [Policy] Move book to contrib in Drupal 11 Fixed , I have no objections here!

  • πŸ‡³πŸ‡ΏNew Zealand quietone

    Removing versions from the title. They can be added back if this is approved.

  • πŸ‡³πŸ‡ΏNew Zealand quietone

    This doesn't have signoffs yet, so removing it as a child of the core issue.

  • πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊAustralia pameeela

    Discussed at DrupalCon Barcelona, and there is consensus to remove it from core. This functionality is not necessary in core but does have a valid use case so it's a good fit for core.

  • πŸ‡³πŸ‡ΏNew Zealand quietone

    This was discussed at a meeting of the Core Leadership team at DrupalCon Barcelona 2024. Those present agreed to the removing the contact module from core and moving it to contrib. The product managers were not able to attend so tagging for their review.

    There are 3 subsystem maintainers for Contact, larowlan, andypost and jibran. Of those, only jibran has not commented here, so leaving the tag.

  • πŸ‡«πŸ‡·France andypost

    Curious why the title said about history module but you're about contact?!

  • πŸ‡«πŸ‡·France andypost

    As the history module maintainer I'm ++ to move to contrib so it needs follow-ups to deprecate and unblock namespace in contrib

  • πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊAustralia pameeela

    I'm sure just a mix up, @quietone was updating a lot of issues!

  • πŸ‡³πŸ‡ΏNew Zealand quietone

    Yes, a silly mistake.

    I will make the core issues when this is marked Fixed.

  • πŸ‡΅πŸ‡°Pakistan jibran Sydney, Australia

    I'm also +1 with moving it to contirb.

Production build 0.71.5 2024