On Thu, June 1, 2006 1:52 am, Gabor Hojtsy said:
Larry Garfield wrote:
Once again, I'm not saying the Drupal versioning system is bad, just not the normal treatment of X.Y.Z that people have been trained to expect. I use KDE only as a high-profile example. It's easier to change people's perceptions and expectations (see comment above) than to completely change our development model. So let's make sure we do a good job of that. :-)
Larry, I would bet that if we would have named Drupal 4.7.0 as Drupal 5.0.0 instead, people would expect drastic user level changes (UI, workflow, etc). The whole versioning discussion ended up because supposed *users* are mislead by our versioning scheme. As long as there are only internal changes and not much UI changes, I don't think a *user* would see the big version increment fitting.
Gabor
<sigh> How many times can I say this. I am not suggesting we change Drupal's versioning system. I repeat: I am not suggesting we change Drupal's versioning system. I say again: I am NOT suggesting we change Drupal's versioning system! Next person who misinterprets me as suggesting we should change our versioning system gets a banana cream pie in the face. </rant> I am saying we need to do a better job of explaining what our versioning system means. It should not be possible to download code from Drupal.org without having a version compatibility page presented to you, at the very least as a clearly (and enticingly) labeled link. I talked with sepeck last night about our version documentation, and ended up getting drafted to take a crack at revising it again. :-) I'll be doing so as soon as I get a chance to sit down and work on it, hopefully in the next few days. --Larry Garfield