Some folks noticed that as of Wednesday's release, we went from 7.4 -> 7.7 and are a bit confused about what's going on, as well as why these releases happened in such rapid succession, so soon after the 7.4 release. Here's the skinny:
- As of Drupal 7.1/Drupal 6.21, Drupal core does monthly releases. This was a new policy the core team discussed and implemented back in May, which lays out a schedule of the last Wednesday of the month for new core releases.
This policy change has helped tremendously to provide predicability for Drupal site maintainers so they don't need to fret every Wednesday about "what if" a new core release comes out, it's helped to ensure timely fixing of security issues, and also has encouraged a general "swarming" around bug fixes in a timely manner to ensure they make the next release deadline.
The monthly rate will likely slow down as D7 continues to mature, but for now it's really helping to provide focus on working through some of the backlog and getting contributed module blockers unstuck.
- When security releases are required, we create two releases. One which has only the security patches, and one that has the security patches, plus all the bug fixes to date.
Why do such a silly thing, you might ask? Because it's *really* important that security fixes get rolled out pronto, whereas the bug fix releases might conceivably need more testing to make sure they don't create any adverse effects in your environment. So we offer Drupal 7.5 for those who want only the quick fix, and Drupal 7.6 for the whole shebang.
This graphic by Gábor Hojtsy, included on all release announcements, lays it out rather simply in flowchart form.
- Drupal 7.6 was accidentally rolled incorrectly, hence 7.7. The only difference between 7.7 and 7.6 is literally a one line fix to the VERSION number in bootstrap.inc (ok, fine, technically 3 lines because of CHANGELOG.txt ;P). I blame being holed up sick in a hotel room with a stomach flu for missing the
git tag. Sorry about that. :(
Thankfully, some helpful friends are helping to work on some automation tools for the process so that doesn't happen again. :)
Hope that helps clarify things!
Rethink version numbers
Current version number system was not meant for security releases at the same time as regular updates.
It's time to add a third digit for security releases and glitches.
We should have moved from 7.4 to:
7.4.1 -> security fix.
7.5 -> bug fix (including security fix).
7.5.1 -> glitch fix.
and in the future, 7.5.2 for any a new security fix.
There's a discussion about
There's a discussion about this at http://groups.drupal.org/node/152484
Short version is "it's complicated."
Was just going to suggest
Was just going to suggest that too. It would defuse a lot of the confusion and I would be able to tell directly from the version number what kind of update/fix it is.
Not sure about the glitch fix though. Probably better to reserve the Z part (X.Y.Z) only for security fixes...
I replied to your comment on CMS Critic.com as well but thought I'd cross post so you could see my reply.
Thanks for commenting. I think the primary issue is that the wording in the release announcements make it sound like you are confused with your version numbers or are reusing an old post template (not trying to be mean, just honest). I read some of the comments and would have to agree with this one:
I can understand the need to have multiple releases at times, but I think, as you've discovered, that sometimes it can lead to confusion.
The good part to all of this is that you are getting the feedback you need to prevent future confusion, so that's always a good thing!
What's complicated? Don't get
What's complicated? Don't get me wrong but it's obviously that this is heading the wrong way. Drupal 7 was released in januari, it's now july 7 months later and we are on version 7.7 of drupal that's madness! Drupal 7 is supposed to be avaible (at least) the next two years (as Dries mentioned) with this version numbering you will get into trouble in already the first year!!!
A solution could be a third digit, in the mean while you can debat if those releases are really needed on the way they are handed out now.
And this: "The only difference between 7.7 and 7.6 is literally a one line fix to the VERSION number in bootstrap.inc", should have been version 7.6.1 as you stated a minor change due a mistake (which can happen of course - we are humans).
Trouble in first year
Trouble in first year how?
Drupal already had 3 digit version prior to Drupal 5.x and there was confusion for many with it as well.
Thats my point there is
Thats my point there is currently no usage of several digits. This seems to be the new style. I pointed out the possible problems with it. No need to tell me about D5 or D6 ;)
Trouble in first year how?
Trouble in first year how? was left unanswered. ;)
thus it sounds more like chicken little hollering that the sky is about to fall without any evidence as such ;)
Depends on your definition of
Depends on your definition of 'problem' I rather see a logical version numbering then having version 7.27 after one year and 7.54 after two. While when you just keep 7.2 for bug fixes and 7.2.1 for security updates it will be much more clear.
Version numbering should be logical to keep things clear.
Thus it's more about personal
Thus it's more about personal preference IMO as the actual # of updates wouldn't change at all regardless of the versioning system in place.
Trouble in the first year?
Trouble in the first year? Are we running short on integers?
So, you are new comer right?
Drupal can go beyond 7.9, see Drupal 6.22 for example.
Actually, we can go with 7.2147483647 before integer run out ;)
To me, X.X is great. I'm not sure X.X.X fitted Drupal, we don't have that much release ie. chrome.
We could always change the name if we need to to Drupal 98 or Drupal XP or Drupal 2000 if we do run out of integers.
Not the chrome version thing again...
When people start pointing at Chrome for short release cycles, they often forget the Chrome team didn't just start using short period between releases, but they also implemented *silent* autoupdates. This is why the short release cycle works for Chrome, but in a far lesser extend to Firefox.
Since we're far from ready to do (silent) autoupdates for Drupal, I don't think I am happy with short release-cycles. I don't want to update X installs of Drupal for Y number of client every month! For me it would actually be a reason to stick with Drupal 6.
This has nothing to do with
This has nothing to do with Chrome, really.
This has more to do with making sure we get security fixes and other critical bug fixes out with a minimal wait, because there's a steady, predictable opportunity for release every month. As I noted above, the monthly frequency of actual releases will likely slow down after we've had a few releases of Drupal 7 and Drupal 8 starts gathering steam.
And although it's not quite silent auto-updates for core (see http://drupal.org/node/606592 if you want to help with that),
drush updoes get the job done in about 3 seconds. :)
short release cycle
I am not trying to be argumentative, nor criticizing your awesome work on D7. It is just that 7 updates for critical issues in about half a year gives the appearance (from the outside) that D7 wasn't ready when it was released. With all the work that's gone into how Drupal is perceived (site redesign and all), this may be something to mull over. But then again, you (and other minds smarter than I) probably already did.
And yeah, I probably should have given drush more than a once-over when I last tried it.
cool, as long as I can still
cool, as long as I can still 'drush up'