-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Larry Garfield schrieb:
I think the DB API is a good example. Beware I'm not criticizing the current work. I love it. Maybe when D6 DB API was planned that was the best thing to do. Now we will see another change of DB API. D7 DB API does really look as a good candidate to be frizzed for at least 2 releases if not more if all the efforts needed will be put into getting it right. Should this change be accompanied by another FAPI change? Should the DB and FAPI change be accompanied by cosmetic changes to other 10 helper functions? I think that shouldn't happen for D8.
What D6 database changes?
Exactly. Spreading of FUD is all I see.
It's not like Drupal is an entirely new CMS every version. Some of the APIs there are quite old and stable, perhaps too old and stable in many cases.
I think people looking for a higher ROI with Drupal based projects should rather sponsor somebody working on old, crufty code in Drupal core than to bitch and moan about our development process.
As Earl noted, what's holding up contrib for D6 isn't massive changes to core. It's that a half-dozen key contrib modules all decided to do major architectural redesigns at the same time as their D6 upgrade when they were changing APIs anyway. (Views, Panels, CCK, ImageAPI/ImageCache/ImageField, etc.) That's the hold up, not core, and that's not something that core development can even really control, even if it wanted to.
Maybe we could introduce a code of conduct for contrib authors to not do major overhauls when a new version is due. Ie if I maintain a module for D6 and D7 comes out, I port it straight away to a D7-1 version and then start a rewrite as D7-2. Cheers, Gerhard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIF02Tfg6TFvELooQRAu2+AJ4tIyIpX+ojbjHJ/mMKfviv7evS9QCfT5di C/ogo1t7tb6wqmjnxk0x8Bg= =PVKH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----