On Aug 4, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Senpai wrote:
If the core release cycle stretches out to two years instead of the 12 month cycle it's in now, will that change or influence your opinions on this? Just wondering.
Not really. Just like I don't think the right time for a new release is after every commit, I also don't think the right time for a whole new major version is after every new feature. 10 new "major" versions in the span of even 3 years seems like an awful lot. And, for the purposes of contrib modules, if they know they're going to get this crazy, they can use a slightly modified convention with 5 digit schema numbers for all I care: 1 for core, 2 for major version, 2 for sequence number. So, when OG 5.x-10.0 comes out, it'd be with a schema update called og_update_51000. No harm there (assuming the OG 6.x-* schema updates start at 600??) -- these numbers are *only* relevant within each project, and all of those integers would be higher than the previous 59?? updates that ran from the 5.x-9.* series. So long as the desired behavior is attained (update numbers keep getting higher, don't conflict on different branches, and moving from a release of one major version to another, or to a new version of core entirely, gets you the right schema updates), it's fine if individual contribs do it a little differently, especially if they clearly document why. Cheers, -Derek (dww)