<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">You are. The community may benefit from Acquia's 'public'<br>
support/choice of contributed modules it in no way, shape or form<br>
establishes a 'gold' repository at <a href="http://drupal.org">drupal.org</a>. Many companies have a<br>
suite of modules they commonly use and track, just don't make public<br>
that list.<br></blockquote><br>Firstly - barring official announcements which I haven't seen, Dries nor Aqcuia have publicly stated that they *would* not help try to inject some sanity into upgrade/development cycles (e.g., making sure that certain contrib module's don't get left too far behind)<br>
<br>Also, I never mentioned a 'gold' repository. My original intention was simply to sign on too the idea that catch suggested which I understood it was - 'why release a Drupal version that no one is going to use for any large/critical sites for six months (or possibly ever)'.<br>
<br>In addition to myself, I know at least one other (large) shop that has more or less committed to skip Drupal 6. This is what's happening and no one wants to deal with it and just poo-poos such talk as being irrelevant. But it is happening, and it's up to everyone to form their own opinion of any relevancy. (personally I'm fine with the idea that some releases end up this way IF was more publicly acknowledge instead of hushed up, which is what I feel like is happening now to some extent)<br>
<br>The real point of all this, which makes this discussion not just a pedantic exercise, is that I truly feel sorry for anyone starting up a big project right now who is just getting into Drupal and trying to make sense of what version to use. I've seen people giving others what I consider to be very bad advice and representing a state of stability/readiness for Drupal 6 which, in my considered *opinion*, is just not there. <br>
<br>Regards,<br>Caleb<br><br>