That's the first comment in this thread that's both new and useful.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/30/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Larry Garfield</b> <<a href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com">larry@garfieldtech.com
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Honestly, I think part of the issue with the "stable API" question is that
<br>Drupal uses version numbers differently from many projects. The de facto<br>standard for version numbers for most projects is Major.Minor.Bug / x.y.z.<br><br>Z increases only fix bugs.<br>Y increases add features, but don't break backward compatibility with 3rd
<br>party code.<br>X increases, all bets are off.<br><br>Witness, for instance, KDE, which has evolved and improved dramatically in<br>the 3.y.z cycle, but code for 3.0.0 still (generally) works in 3.5.1. For<br>the upcoming
4.0, howver, there are no "sacred cows" and everything will<br>need to be updated.<br><br>For Drupal, Y increases, all bets are off. We technically don't have Y<br>releases, just Z and X, but we use both of the first two numbers for the X
<br>releases. That throws a lot of people off. It actually surprised me a<br>great deal, although fortunately it didn't affect my plans significantly.<br><br>Whatever else we do, we should probably make that clearer right up front.
<br>It's not inherently a bad development model, just an unconventional one<br>that needs to be made clearer.<br><br>--Larry Garfield<br><br></blockquote></div><br>