umm.... HERE! HERE!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Chris Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cxjohnson@gmail.com">cxjohnson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>This has always been the assumption -- that there is more development<br>
in the newest version than in older versions. But it has always just<br>
been an assumption without proof -- and even I feel it was probably<br>
true most of the time, or in the past.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I bet there could be some of those keen on statistics could easily write a few queries to determine which is the case. It would be important to also consider contrib too. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
If one only measures core development, than of course it's true,<br>
simply because past core releases are essentially frozen except<br>
security fixes.<br>
<br>
But right now, I would bet far more effort is being spent on Drupal 6<br>
development than on Drupal 7 development. And it's part of this<br>
topic's problem.<br>
<br>
Issues and patches are piling up in the Drupal 6 issue queues, but the<br>
push is to look at Drupal 7 development.<br>
<br>
For example, I'm spending 100% of my effort to build Drupal 6<br>
websites. I find a bunch of bugs in D6. I write issues and post<br>
patches. My motivation to check for the same problem in D7 and then<br>
develop a D7 patch, is going to be considerably less than my<br>
motivation for D6. I might not even be able to do that, if the D7<br>
code is not sufficiently ready or stable. If I'm already waiting for<br>
patches to be applied to D6 modules, I'm not going to be interested in<br>
waiting even longer to have them applied to D7 and then get backported<br>
to D6. I need the fix yesterday, not next year.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I understand the rationale for expecting all patches to be addressed in head and then back ported. However, sometimes I wonder whether it would be also effective to have the patches ported forward. This *is* one point of having a version stated as maintained. It could be argued it is less efficient, but if it helps people work more I would argue it is a more effective approach in some areas. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Really it's all about every member of the community having a different<br>
agenda, and everyone is negotiating with the community to get as much<br>
support for their own agenda as possible. Some people have more<br>
influence than others or more power than others in these negotiations<br>
(the Drupal community is much like the rest of life in this regard,<br>
after all).<br>
<br>
The question is whether the majority should continue to be facilitate<br>
the agenda of the minority, or if the majority should stand up, notice<br>
that it is the majority, and push more strongly for what they want.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is a strong point, and it also reflects the changing nature of the Drupal community. </div><div><br></div><div>
</div></div><br>