Zend Framework 2.0 should be released soon, and it has been four years since the last major release (1.0). This is not to imply that Zend Framework has been stagnant—far from it. There has been a ton of development effort and many improvements to Zend Framework since 1.0. I have a great amount of trust in the team, and I have complete confidence that Zend Framework 2.0 will be an awesome framework. This post is intended to make the case for rapid release cycles for software in general, and is not meant to be a criticism of Zend Framework or the development processes behind it. However, the discussions around Zend Framework’s release cycle are what’s prompting me to make this post.
First, let me describe what I mean by a “rapid release cycle”. In this context, I mean rapid releases of major versions. Put simply, major versions are those that allow backwards compatible breaks. This is somewhat controversial. I don’t think anyone really has any big concerns with the rapid release of minor (introduction of new features while maintaining backwards compatibility) or maintenance (bug and/or security fix) releases. “Rapid” depends on the context. Both Chrome and Firefox have adopted a six-week release cycle. As I mentioned before, six months could be considered “rapid” for a framework.
For a framework (and maybe for other software), I think the following rules are necessary in order for a rapid release cycle to work:
- Minimize backwards compatibility changes between major releases. Targeted and strategic refactoring, rather than major overhauls, are preferable if you are releasing often. Small backwards compatibility changes makes migrating from one major version to another much easier.
- Mark some major releases as “Long Term Support” (LTS) releases. Provide bug fix updates and security patches to these releases for three to five years. This provides a “safe” option to those who value stability and don’t want to upgrade very often. In the context of Zend Framework, it is obviously Zend’s decision if they want to take on this burden. If not, then I don’t think a rapid release cycle is viable.
What are the concerns with a rapid release cycle? I’ll paraphrase, and then address, the major concerns that I’ve heard.
“Rapid releases of major versions are just for psychological effect and has no affect on the delivery pace of new features.” This is both true and false. See my earlier post on iterative vs. incremental development. If development is incremental and driven entirely by a pre-determined roadmap then there is no tangible differences between a “normal” and a rapid release cycle. The development of many consumer software packages is perceived as incremental, in which case major version bumps are mostly psychological. However, if you take an iterative development approach and build-in outside learning from end-users into your process, then a rapid release cycle gives you the chance to change course based on outside feedback. Learning opportunities are introduced that you would have never had if your software wasn’t actually used by real people in the real world.
“Rapid release cycles are for consumer software where you don’t have to care for backward compatibility.” This is related to the previous concern. My response is that rapid release cycles are for any product where learning from real-world usage and outside input can be used to improve the product. To quote Steve Blank, “There are no answers inside the building.”
“It forces people to upgrade too often and rewrite their code, or get left behind.” See my earlier note about minimizing backwards compatibility changes in each major release. Additionally, it is much easier to automate upgrades if the backwards compatibility changes are small. There should be little code rewriting for applications built using the framework with each major version upgrade of the framework.
“Having lots of end-of-life (EOL) versions being used could be a security risk.” See my earlier note about providing LTS releases. Each major release should come with a pre-determined EOL date. It is the responsibility of the end-user (in the case of a framework, the developer) to be aware of a release’s EOL date. Using EOLed software is always a security risk.
While not specifically a concern with rapid release cycles, there’s a general mentality that major releases are “our chance to get it right.” Hopefully you’re a better software developer than you were even six months ago. Chances are you know more than you did then, and would approach solving problems differently now. Think six months before that, and six months before that. Now project this into the future. Where will you be in six months? Will you know more than you do now? Will you approach solving problems differently than you do now? If you’re a good software developer, you will never get it “right”—you will always be better six months from now than you are today and know more than you know today. A rapid release cycle allows you to apply new learning, knowledge, and perspective as often as possible. Do your best today, and give yourself opportunities to do your best in the future as well.