[development] Why Drupal 4.7 is late? (long)
ber at webschuur.com
Mon Jan 16 11:07:38 UTC 2006
Thank you Karoly, for this very well written mail! It clarifies a lot.
But, (as always) I'd like to play the devils advocate here.
As I recently wrote on my blog  there are a few things to consider:
* Its done when its done is not a good attitude hen you want to keep
professionals (aka those-with-agendas-plannings-and-deadlines) on board. They
need insurance that their project can go live on Date X.
* If you want people to help fixing bugs in HEAD, you must allow them to use
head for development. IE: make it as stable as possible and give insurance
about when things will be done.
* If you don't provide that certainty, professional developers will have to
decide to develop on and for the last stable release. Hence pulling away
resources that *could* have helped with the HEAD. That could have fixed
numerous bugs. I still see lots of 4.6 modules being released. Meaning that
people still do no trust HEAD.
So, I am not debating against the points you make. For the reasons you give
for why we are where we are are very well put, and very true. I just hope,
sincerely, that we learn from this; and never ever make the almost classic
OSS mistake to slip in huge changes in the end. Again. And that we could
reconsider some of our release cycle methods. For, I fear this is not a
standalone incident, but, with the growth-rate of Drupal will rather become
standard. Meaning there will probably be no 4.8 before 2007/8.
> Ps. If anyone wants to start bitching around "you should have released
> without form API", then first please show your comment with a September
> date asking for that on Drupal.org -- I met none in the roadmap posts or
> the form API thread.
This, however, is the only part I really disagree with. We all know that the
FormAPI was met with great Resistance (hefty discussions at the
drupalconference). Should we all archive our concerns? I am sure, that on
IRC, in mails and maybe evenon Drupal.org I have been against this big change
at the end of the cycle. But that does not mean that I had to (try to) stop
the patch from going in, does it?
Should we always vote against things that we a) do not yet fully understand or
b) do not agree upon?
It is a bad thing, IMO to have to -1 all decisions, that one does not really
understand but that 'might possibly have a great impact, of which one thinks,
it might turn out negative'. In that case one should not vote. Which, is not
the same as a +1 !
PGP ber at webschuur.com
PGP berkessels at gmx.net
More information about the development