[development] no 4-7-0 branch for core yet?

David Reed dreed10 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 16:04:22 UTC 2006

A BIG +1 on the idea of time-boxing the release cycles.  I think this has a
lot of benefits over the current approach.


1. It helps to create a sense of stability around the product.
2. It alleviates some (not all) of the when-will-release-X-be-done
3. It helps businesses that rely on Drupal better plan their own
Drupal-based initiatives
4. It adds a certain amount of structure to the development life-cycle
5. It helps contributors because knowing the schedule they can focus their
efforts on the things that are most important to them for THAT release

I know there are down-sides as well.  I think the added structure would
require more effort to manage.  I've seen some OS projects employ a rotating
release-coordinator so that burden is shared.

Just my 2 cents.

On 2/20/06, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> (Crazy idea: should 4.7 be renamed 5.0?
> >> Would it be better to call it 5.0?
> > It would have been, but with several beta's already released it's
> > now too late. And besides if everyone listens to Adrian R. and
> > implements his crazy/brilliant ideas 4.7 *will* look like a point
> > release compared to 4.8... =D
> There a lot of crazy (yet cool) ideas shaping up for Drupal 4.8/5.0.
> People should already start preparing their patches; I hope to use
> much shorter development cycles in future aiming towards 2-3 releases
> a year.  I'm thinking about trying a time-based release cycle, where
> development is frozen at a predefined date.  It sounds like something
> worth evaluating.  It doesn't hurt to give it a try.
> --
> Dries Buytaert  ::  http://www.buytaert.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20060220/f96fca67/attachment.htm

More information about the development mailing list