In reference to the project page and release strategy i strongly vote against stable 8.x releases.

Drupal 8 is subject of heavy change and thus it is impossible to release something considered stable. D8 can easily change something that breaks mailsystem without prior notice.

Once Drupal 8 is out, we can discuss about when a software is stable. Before we cannot be more stable than -dev.

Comments

pillarsdotnet’s picture

pillarsdotnet commented
Status: Active » Fixed

There is nothing on the "Releases" tab of my project editing screen that indicates whether a release is "Stable" or "Unstable".

There is, however, "Supported" and "Recommended". And it is possible to set the "Recommended" release to "None."

I have done so for all the 8.x branches of my modules. If you meant for some other action to be taken, please be more specific, or do it yourself.

miro_dietiker’s picture

miro_dietiker
Location Switzerland
commented

I cannot change that :-S

Note that you still sould announce a (e.g. non-stable) branch as supported and as recommended...
However, using a naming like 8.x-2.31 IS a stable release by definition.
There's no reason to release currently. A dev snapshot that periodically updates would be well enough.

For a regular release, you should anyway release a beta first and wait for enough feedback to stabilize everything.

Please check this naming convention and release type explanation
http://drupal.org/node/1015226
http://drupal.org/documentation/releases/types

A beta is primarily considered API stable and having an upgrade path. A rc is expected to contain minor bugfixing only before stable.
What you generally release is more like an alpha (without consequenz quality assurance, e.g. no tests, ...)

pillarsdotnet’s picture

pillarsdotnet commented

So what you're saying is that I should append "-alpha" to all of my release names, in all three branches.

pillarsdotnet’s picture

pillarsdotnet commented

Regardless of the naming, I plan to continue issuing one release for each feature change and/or bugfix, synchronized as much as possible among all three branches. If you find this pointless, you may feel free to ignore the 8.x branch, just like everyone else.

See http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html

miro_dietiker’s picture

miro_dietiker
Location Switzerland
commented

Yes, you will need to append e.g. -alpha depending on the quality level of your release.
Release early, often is something that's fine with drupal.
But it's more like 8.x-1.x ... -alpha1 -alpha2 -alpha3 .... -beta1 .... andn so on
Until a release completes cleanly.

Sequential release numbers simply don't say anything about their state, quality, compatibility...
If you e.g. release fast something that is a dependency of our modules, you might break things. While a -alpha release would indicate that it is not really tested for interoperability. Also the major/minor concept is important.

If you don't follow the drupal guidelines, no one can reliably build things on top of your modules.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.