Proposing a 'stable' branch?

[CatsEyeXI]

With the number of commits ongoing into the 'base' branch I'm wondering how thoroughly vetted (and tested) these changes are. I know that there are a lot of new features going in, and I think that's super exciting. However, as an admin I feel like we should have a branch available that is perhaps a bit minimalistic but has stood the test time and known to cause very few issues.

It kind of seems to me like perhaps 'everything' was/is intended to have all of the latest and greatest features for those who likes to be on the bleeding edge, and test new implementations. Was 'base' intended to be this 'stable' branch that I'm imagining?

Do you guys think there's any room for such a branch in the repo? Just an idea I had, won't be offended if anyone wants to shoot it down :)

[zach2good]

Long ago, in pre-history (DSP), there was a 'stable' branch, but it was consistently forgotten about and was never actually stable (always 6+ months behind). Maintaining another branch is yet another thing we'd have to keep track of and maintain.

We have been a little faster and looser with merging things straight into base than we perhaps originally intended, but we specifically chose the names "base" and "everything" to not imply any levels of stability, whereas in the last project our "unstable" branch was called "canary".

If you want to maintain a stable branch, you're welcome to, but I don't think it's something we're going to take on.

[CatsEyeXI]

Long ago, in pre-history (DSP), there was a 'stable' branch, but it was consistently forgotten about and was never actually stable (always 6+ months behind). Maintaining another branch is yet another thing we'd have to keep track of and maintain.

We have been a little faster and looser with merging things straight into base than we perhaps originally intended, but we specifically chose the names "base" and "everything" to not imply any levels of stability, whereas in the last project our "unstable" branch was called "canary".

If you want to maintain a stable branch, you're welcome to, but I don't think it's something we're going to take on.

that's totally fine, and I just might do that...

[TeoTwawki]

Everytime I see the word “stable” used, I die a little. I know who to blame for tonights batch of nightmares when I sleep tonight. 😛

Base is as close to stable as we will ever get. That said everything branch is meant to include as its name implies, all the things. It’ll get more use in the future.

We try to make sure both are as stable as we can but there is always going to be something out there as we don’t own dedicated servers with dedicated testers testing things prior to your ability to pull - even when we use feature branches people pull them anyway and complain as if the bugs were in the base :(

[CatsEyeXI]

Everytime I see the word “stable” used, I die a little. I know who to blame for tonights batch of nightmares when I sleep tonight. 😛

Base is as close to stable as we will ever get. That said everything branch is meant to include as its name implies, all the things. It’ll get more use in the future.

We try to make sure both are as stable as we can but there is always going to be something out there as we don’t own dedicated servers with dedicated testers testing things prior to your ability to pull - even when we use feature branches people pull them anyway and complain as if the bugs were in the base :(

I understand, and not to worry. I know that between developing new stuff for us and maintaining the repo, there isn't a whole lot of time left for real life, etc. Not to worry though, as long as we can maintain a decent player base we will happily test new stuff and report back. I think our fork is slowly getting to a place where we can juggle our own 'stable', and test nightly builds on the test server. Just never had/thought out the workflow like that before.