[development] RFC: drupal as a moving target
caleb.gilbert at gmail.com
Wed Apr 30 15:34:01 UTC 2008
> You are. The community may benefit from Acquia's 'public'
> support/choice of contributed modules it in no way, shape or form
> establishes a 'gold' repository at drupal.org. Many companies have a
> suite of modules they commonly use and track, just don't make public
> that list.
Firstly - barring official announcements which I haven't seen, Dries nor
Aqcuia have publicly stated that they *would* not help try to inject some
sanity into upgrade/development cycles (e.g., making sure that certain
contrib module's don't get left too far behind)
Also, I never mentioned a 'gold' repository. My original intention was
simply to sign on too the idea that catch suggested which I understood it
was - 'why release a Drupal version that no one is going to use for any
large/critical sites for six months (or possibly ever)'.
In addition to myself, I know at least one other (large) shop that has more
or less committed to skip Drupal 6. This is what's happening and no one
wants to deal with it and just poo-poos such talk as being irrelevant. But
it is happening, and it's up to everyone to form their own opinion of any
relevancy. (personally I'm fine with the idea that some releases end up this
way IF was more publicly acknowledge instead of hushed up, which is what I
feel like is happening now to some extent)
The real point of all this, which makes this discussion not just a pedantic
exercise, is that I truly feel sorry for anyone starting up a big project
right now who is just getting into Drupal and trying to make sense of what
version to use. I've seen people giving others what I consider to be very
bad advice and representing a state of stability/readiness for Drupal 6
which, in my considered *opinion*, is just not there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the development