- 🇺🇸United States jenlampton
Patch in #284 is working for me. Marking as RTBC.
- Assigned to Kristen Pol
- 🇺🇸United States Kristen Pol Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Assigning to myself as I'm triaging all RTBC issues.
- 🇨🇭Switzerland berdir Switzerland
Note that this is a D7 issue, I'm not maintaining only 8.x-1.x, that was the original agreement with Dave and i think we shouldn'r be making non-trivial changes to 7.x-1.x at this point.
- Status changed to Postponed
over 1 year ago 1:54am 9 August 2023 - 🇺🇸United States Kristen Pol Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Thanks @Berdir. Yeah, I'm assigning everything that's RTBC to me in order to triage and see what is still valid and what's not and hopefully move issues forward or close them out.
I agree that this is a major issue and might be dicey to merge at this point. It's a shame though given everyone's hard work. Though, there is a patch people can use that was RTBC'ed so they can always use that.
I'd love to give issue credit for everyone's hard work on this but let me think how to best do that while marking this one as "won't fix". Postponing for the moment.
- 🇳🇴Norway steinmb
Given the current activity on D7 modules it might be difficult to legitimise the use of developer/maintenance time doing so. The issue is marked with "needs tests" though the patch introduce a single test with two assertions. Not sure if the tag was not removed or that this is too little tests. That might tip the scale. We could create a new branch and move this to, 7.x-2.x as an experimental feature. Not sure we win anything by doing so?