[development] no 4-7-0 branch for core yet?
kb at 2bits.com
Mon Feb 20 16:11:47 UTC 2006
Too disruptive and resource intensive.
People have sites to upgrade, modules to update, ...etc.
If there is too much to do every 3 months, it will become a burden on
Also, core developers have to put in time for making it happen, people
have to test it, and Dries will go mad in no time.
There is a reason Ubuntu timed it at 2 per year. Even once every 8 months
is good, since it is more predictable.
On 2/20/06, David Reed <dreed10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> My vote would be for 3 - four month cycles per year.
> On 2/20/06, Khalid B <kb at 2bits.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> > A time based release cycle has merits.
> > It should not be more than 2 a year (one every 6 months), since it will
> > strain the community's resources.
> > Ubuntu was founded because of the frustration with Debian's lengthy
> > release cycle, and do it twice yearly.
More information about the development