[infrastructure] Re: [development] Drupal 4.5 unsupported
larry at garfieldtech.com
Thu Jun 1 15:43:25 UTC 2006
On Thu, June 1, 2006 1:52 am, Gabor Hojtsy said:
> Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Once again, I'm not saying the Drupal versioning system is bad, just not
>> the normal treatment of X.Y.Z that people have been trained to expect.
>> use KDE only as a high-profile example. It's easier to change people's
>> perceptions and expectations (see comment above) than to completely
>> our development model. So let's make sure we do a good job of that. :-)
> Larry, I would bet that if we would have named Drupal 4.7.0 as Drupal
> 5.0.0 instead, people would expect drastic user level changes (UI,
> workflow, etc). The whole versioning discussion ended up because
> supposed *users* are mislead by our versioning scheme. As long as there
> are only internal changes and not much UI changes, I don't think a
> *user* would see the big version increment fitting.
<sigh> How many times can I say this. I am not suggesting we change
Drupal's versioning system.
I repeat: I am not suggesting we change Drupal's versioning system.
I say again: I am NOT suggesting we change Drupal's versioning system!
Next person who misinterprets me as suggesting we should change our
versioning system gets a banana cream pie in the face. </rant>
I am saying we need to do a better job of explaining what our versioning
system means. It should not be possible to download code from Drupal.org
without having a version compatibility page presented to you, at the very
least as a clearly (and enticingly) labeled link.
I talked with sepeck last night about our version documentation, and ended
up getting drafted to take a crack at revising it again. :-) I'll be
doing so as soon as I get a chance to sit down and work on it, hopefully
in the next few days.
More information about the development