On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 14:08 -0600, Chris Johnson wrote:
Morbus Iff wrote:
between 4.6 and 4.7 should really be major release number changes, e.g 4.6 -> 5.0, not point releases.
I disagree. If I can simplify the last six months of work:
FormAPI or, as I prefer, FAPI. Security/validation related to FAPI
This is a framework/API "developer feature", and not something that the end-user will ever care to appreciate. Taking FAPI out of the equation, I don't really see the number of *important* features that would make justify a 5.0 release.
Whether the changes are to the end user is only a part of the equation. The revision number of the software should provide a general guideline to all audiences as to how much of a change a particular release contains. End users who can "see" the change are only one member of the set of all audiences.
Members of those audiences might include: 1. Drupal core developers 2. Drupal module developers 3. Drupal theme developers 4. Consultants 5. Site developers 6. Site administrators 7. IT administrators 8. Site owner entity management (e.g. NGO boards or for-profit management) 9. End users 10. Etc.
All of these people need to know something has changed. One might argue that End Users themselves have the least need to be notified, since they will either "see" the difference -- or they won't.
Morbus' argument that most of the 4.7 changes are "developer features" (and therefore the revision number need not reflect their scope) leaves out the other audiences.
Consultants need to know how big a change it might mean to their current clients. Site developers need to know which version to target for a site that has to go live in 4 weeks, and they need to know how much effort it's going to take to upgrade from 4.6 to 4.7 to correctly make that decision.
IT administrators and Site Owners need to know that 4.6 to 4.7 is a big change so that they can manage their resources, schedule their upgrades and plan their next 6 to 12 months of system, network, site and related software activity.
Drupal sites don't exist in a vacuum, especially not anymore. Managing a Drupal-based website often means more than worrying about the Drupal version.
Bryght is plugged in technically and won't have a problem. But it's just as possible that other organizations have made similar large commitments to using Drupal, and they may not be as plugged in. They need a BIG Red Sign in the form of a major release number to let them know that 4.7 is dramatically different "under the hood" from 4.6, and that upgrading is going to take lots of manpower.
The Form API change should have made 4.7 be named 5.0. It's too late to rename it, but the revision numbers should be in accord with that kind thinking, contrary to what Morbus argues.
..chris
You know I have to strongly disagree with the hubbabbaloo.... Most software groups have their own guidelines for the versioning, which grew from a community process... Generally speaking versioning basically goes something like changes to more significant digits(those on the left) indicate a greater change in the program. I think for drupal most people who pay attention or read a little bit, quickly figure out. X.Y.Z Z changes = bug fixes and compatable... Y changes = some pretty big stuff went down, you got some neat features, and modules will have to be updated, menu's have been re-arranged. Upgrade with caution.. Z changes = a whole new beast... The hooks were replace by form callbacks or something similar. Drupal is now a dynamic XML transformed by dynamic XSL into whatevery buzzword you want... be ready to invest a good bit of time in figuring out what has changed. Only trace elements will be familiar... ps... everyone else was talking I had to say something..