[documentation] [Documentation task] Should I develop against the stable version or HEAD?

[sepeck]

Issue status update for 
http://drupal.org/node/80302
Post a follow up: 
http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/80302

 Project:      Documentation
 Version:      <none>
 Component:    Developer Guide
 Category:     tasks
 Priority:     normal
 Assigned to:  Anonymous
 Reported by:  webchick
 Updated by:   sepeck
 Status:       active

all right, I've reconsidered after IRC chat.  A page inthe developers
handbook definitly would be a good idea.  There's a whole lot of
reasons to NOT develop on HEAD and some for developing when the freeze
hits but a lot is very conditional on skills, involvement in the
community, deadline to live site.


Some could probably be pulled form the existing one and linked to the
dev one.




sepeck



Previous comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:54:57 +0000 : webchick

This question has come up increasingly in the forums and IRC recently,
with all the buzz that's been going on about the installer, etc. and I
remember it also coming up a lot during the HEAD => 4.7 release cycle.


It would be great to get the pros/cons of this documented for once in
the handbook so we can refer people to that page.


We could maybe start with some of the stuff in this reply:
http://drupal.org/node/79006#comment-145788


But I'm thinking this probably needs to be fleshed out more, to go into
more detail.


Anyone have some feedback they'd like to put here? (especially would be
interesting coming from people who were building sites at the time of
the HEAD => 4.7 release cycle, both the "victims" ;) and those for whom
it was made easier.)




------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:45:02 +0000 : sepeck

You mean more then is already documented here?
http://drupal.org/handbook/version-info


We could add to that page the stuff about code freeze and something
nice and polite that says 'if you have to ask' then you shouldn't use
HEAD. 


It makes the page long but with versioning and such I'd rather it be in
one place for one referal link.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:54:03 +0000 : zirafa

My personal preference is to develop against the last stable version. 
However, I try and keep up with changes in HEAD and make a note of what
I'll have to do to upgrade.  That way when HEAD branches I already have
digested the things to do (for the most part).  I can understand why
some like to keep up with HEAD though.  It doesn't seem like one way is
really 'better' than the other, though.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:59:04 +0000 : zirafa

Keeping up with HEAD:


PROS:



* stay on top of changes
* less work per change
* early release time

CONS:



* it takes effort to constantly check for changes
* possibility of things breaking
* harder to troubleshoot problems?

Waiting for the stable branch:
PROS:



* easier to debug
* no work required to keep up with changes

CONS:



* if you wait till the end, you may have TONS of changes to make all at
once (i.e. form API!)
* there may be so many changes to make it pushed back your development
considerably (almost to the next cycle)



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:47:35 +0000 : webchick

Good point, sepeck. I forgot about that page. But that seems it's more
geared more toward people downloading Drupal for the first time. I'm
more addressing this towards site architects who want to build their
site on Drupal but need some guidance on which one to go with. They
could probably be merged into the same doc, or at least one pointing to
the other.


Zirafa: thanks, good points. :) I'll try and brainstorm some others,
too.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:01:48 +0000 : chx

it should be noted that while you may develop HEAD but never, ever run a
production site with HEAD. There are no database updates provided
between different states of HEAD. And you can not expect that HEAD
won't make spinach salad out of your DB. I remember that sometimes it
did.


Also, sometimes security holes appear in HEAD to be closed without any
announcement.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:05:40 +0000 : drewish

i say if you don't have a hard deadline, develop for HEAD. you'll find
(and hopefully be able to help fix) bugs and you'll be in a position to
help determine the direction of drupal development. plus HEAD is where
all the cool stuff is. that and you'll get all kinds of good karam for
submitting patches for the contrib modules you need to use ;)




------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:12:26 +0000 : sun

Very interesting question. Applies not only to Drupal core. I asked
myself today regarding CCK (=> 4.7.0 is stable and developing features
and patches is doable - but they won't apply against current HEAD of
CCK).


Shouldn't the Component be Developer Guide?