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

[Darrel O'Pry]

On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 14:08 -0600, Chris Johnson wrote:
> Morbus Iff wrote:
> >> between 4.6 and 4.7 should really be major release number changes, e.g 
> >> 4.6 -> 5.0, not point releases.
> > 
> > I disagree. If I can simplify the last six months of work:
> > 
> >   FormAPI or, as I prefer, FAPI.
> >   Security/validation related to FAPI
> > 
> > This is a framework/API "developer feature", and not something that the 
> > end-user will ever care to appreciate. Taking FAPI out of the equation, 
> > I don't really see the number of *important* features that would make 
> > justify a 5.0 release.
> > 
> 
> Whether the changes are to the end user is only a part of the equation.  The 
> revision number of the software should provide a general guideline to all 
> audiences as to how much of a change a particular release contains.  End users 
> who can "see" the change are only one member of  the set of all audiences.
> 
> Members of those audiences might include:
> 1.  Drupal core developers
> 2.  Drupal module developers
> 3.  Drupal theme developers
> 4.  Consultants
> 5.  Site developers
> 6.  Site administrators
> 7.  IT administrators
> 8.  Site owner entity management (e.g. NGO boards or for-profit management)
> 9.  End users
> 10. Etc.
> 
> All of these people need to know something has changed.  One might argue that 
> End Users themselves have the least need to be notified, since they will 
> either "see" the difference -- or they won't.
> 
> Morbus' argument that most of the 4.7 changes are "developer features" (and 
> therefore the revision number need not reflect their scope) leaves out the 
> other audiences.
> 
> Consultants need to know how big a change it might mean to their current 
> clients.  Site developers need to know which version to target for a site that 
> has to go live in 4 weeks, and they need to know how much effort it's going to 
> take to upgrade from 4.6 to 4.7 to correctly make that decision.
> 
> IT administrators and Site Owners need to know that 4.6 to 4.7 is a big change 
> so that they can manage their resources, schedule their upgrades and plan 
> their next 6 to 12 months of system, network, site and related software activity.
> 
> Drupal sites don't exist in a vacuum, especially not anymore.  Managing a 
> Drupal-based website often means more than worrying about the Drupal version.
> 
> Bryght is plugged in technically and won't have a problem.  But it's just as 
> possible that other organizations have made similar large commitments to using 
> Drupal, and they may not be as plugged in.  They need a BIG Red Sign in the 
> form of a major release number to let them know that 4.7 is dramatically 
> different "under the hood" from 4.6, and that upgrading is going to take lots 
> of manpower.
> 
> The Form API change should have made 4.7 be named 5.0.  It's too late to 
> rename it, but the revision numbers should be in accord with that kind 
> thinking, contrary to what Morbus argues.
> 
> ..chris


You know I have to strongly disagree with the hubbabbaloo....
Most software groups have their own guidelines for the versioning, which
grew from a community process... Generally speaking versioning basically
goes something like changes to more significant digits(those on the
left) indicate a greater change in the program.

I think for drupal most people who pay attention or read a little bit,
quickly figure out.
X.Y.Z

Z changes = bug fixes and compatable...

Y changes = some pretty big stuff went down, you got some neat features,
and modules will have to be updated, menu's have been re-arranged.
Upgrade with caution..

Z changes = a whole new beast... The hooks were replace by form
callbacks or something similar. Drupal is now a dynamic XML transformed
by dynamic XSL into whatevery buzzword you want...  be ready to invest a
good bit of time in figuring out what has changed. Only trace elements
will be familiar...


ps...  everyone else was talking I had to say something..