Martin's confirmed that there will already be extended long term support (otherwise 1.9 support would be dropped as soon as 2.1 comes out). It just might not be quite as extended or long term as you want yet.
But, like I said above - I think the power here is probably in users' hands. Look at the graph on the bottom of the stats page. The registration data has a tendency to get out of date and include test sites that were never used and stuff like that, so a certain degree of older versions can be ignored, but if by the end of the year it continues to look like 1.9 Pac-Man is eating all the other versions (with 2.0 not even being as big as the older versions)... is Martin really going to drop security fixes for 1.9? Well, it's up to him, but I doubt it...
--sam
Hi
I thought I would throw in my 2 cents. Not long ago I post a simple question, "How many of you have upgraded to 2.0x for your production site?" I received no responses to this question.
I upgraded one of my production sites to 2.0 and later that afternoon I went back to 1.9.10, which is a very stable version. The bugs I ran into I did not expect when upgradeding to 2.0. My personal feelings are that for the number of normal users using 1.9x you would think that there would have been alot more thought given to migrating all of that data from 1.9 to 2.0.
Also I feel the way or the lack of ftp ability into courses need some work, as well as the media componets.
I think I will approach 2.0 like I approach Microsoft releases, waiting until all the beta bugs are worked out then upgrade. I figure I will upgrade my sites in a year or so, maybe by then the kinks will be worked out.
William
Indeed, William, but folk do not want to talk about whether Moodle 2 should have been released (hence the circumlocuton, Howard, regarding the great ape.)
Perhaps one should simply stick with calling 1.9 "mature"? I don't think anyone is disagreeing here about core points: a) 1.9 IS stable, b) 1.9 hosts an extensive set of modules that are not yet supported by 2.x, c) until there are stable tools with which to migrate courses to moodle 2.0, a move to Moodle 2 must be site-wide or tediously address upgrading one course at a gtime, d) there are still upgrade issues with 2.x as well as bugs, and we have seen some bugs introduced post 2.0 (as well as bugs removed), e) any move to 2.x would require very extensive planning, testing and training of support staff, intructors and students.
Given the above and the assumption that IT departments NEVER have the resources they would wish to have to engage in such a migration, the process is going to require a number of parallel installations potentially requiring significant additional tangible assets as well as substantial manpower from departments already arguing that their staff is maxed out.
I remember the Win2K deployment planners promoted by Microsoft, lol, though I Do NOT remember any win2k migration that went smoothly - though there was a good deal of black humor about forests and trees ;=} I don't think that Moodle is served well by emulating the Redmond model, either in the GUI (where making things more Windows-like is NOT an improvement) nor in the life/development cycle.
I believe I predicted that we wold see Moodle 2 on majorproduction sites two years from its release..... I am sure Martin scheduled things to make me look prescient - lol.