[development] no 4-7-0 branch for core yet?
dopry at thing.net
Mon Feb 20 23:28:32 UTC 2006
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.
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.
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..
More information about the development