[development] releases, recommended/supported changing automatically on release creation...

Derek Wright drupal at dwwright.net
Mon Mar 10 23:33:28 UTC 2008

On Mar 10, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Earl Miles wrote:

> Yes, technically this is wrong from what dww intended to set up.

Indeed, the new stuff on the project nodes doesn't accurately reflect  
the equivalent logic update_status is using for releases with "extra":


:(  That issue has been a huge pain, since it was officially marked  
"done" as far as GHOP was concerned over 6 weeks ago, but I ended up  
having to basically write all the code myself in the end.  If a lone  
developer falls down in the forest and no one is around to hear it,  
does it make a sound?

> However, the decision not to allow modules a Z number in the  
> release system (x.y.Z) left us in the annoying position that the  
> major number can ramp up *very* quickly...which means *branch  
> maintenance* can ramp up *very* quickly.

Even if you had a 3rd version number to play with, that doesn't  
change your pain regarding branches.  It just means branches should  
correspond to 2 different elements in the version string (think 4.7.x  
core -- the "4.7" identifies the branch, while the "x" identifies a  
specific release tag along that branch).  So, while you can complain  
about having 2 vs. 3 digits to work with, it's not for the reason you  
state here.  If you don't want a bunch of branches to deal with,  
either a) put more API changes and new features into a given release  
series (what I do with signup.module 5.x-2.* for example), or b) make  
heavy use of deselecting the "supported" checkbox for the older  
branches, and force your users to upgrade more often (which is more  
of a pain in their asses, but means you have less branches you need  
to backport bugfixes for).

> I wanted Views 2 to actually be 2; had I done this by the rules,  
> Views 2 would actually be Views 6 or something, and that fails to  
> fit my vision.

That's pretty much the only thing to gain for a 3rd digit, and the  
cost would be increased complexity for everyone else.

/me shrugs

Trying to balance the entire development community's conflicting  
requests is completely impossible.  I'm already at the verge of  
snapping and running away screaming.  Some people think it's too  
complicated and confusing.  Others say it's overly simplified and not  
powerful enough.  Everyone has their own opinions about the  
terminology.  I can probably count on 1 hand the number of people who  
have seriously contributed towards this system (Earl being one of  
them, mind you).  I could probably fill an auditorium with the number  
of people who've complained after the fact about some aspect of it.

-Derek (dww)

More information about the development mailing list