testing branch

[agentmnm]

maybe you should introduce a testing branch, where the latest changes can be tested until they are deemed stable. Similar to the Debian Linux version management.

The advantage is, that people who are downloading testing know, that the firmware might contain bugs, and there is still the fall-back to stable (or master in that case, we might want to call it stable).

That way bugs will get sorted out by a broader testing-group.

Isn't that what github is all about ;)

Thanks for thinking about it!

[jenkie]

Good idea! Why not "master" as testing/working branch and "stable" as the release branch?

[agentmnm]

Sounds fine by me!

Later we can add an unstable branch :D that sounds dangerous on a pedelec!!! But as long as You keep Your bearings straight, You might get away with it ;)

-------- Original-Nachricht --------

Datum: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:52:03 -0700 Von: jenkie notifications@github.com An: jenkie/Arduino-Pedelec-Controller Arduino-Pedelec-Controller@noreply.github.com CC: agentmnm epsg@gmx.net Betreff: Re: [Arduino-Pedelec-Controller] testing branch (#19)

Good idea! Why not "master" as testing/working branch and "stable" as the release branch?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jenkie/Arduino-Pedelec-Controller/issues/19#issuecomment-7635483

[thomasjfox]

Moin,

On Friday, 10. August 2012 00:32:41 you wrote:

Sounds fine by me!

Later we can add an unstable branch :D that sounds dangerous on a pedelec!!! But as long as You keep Your bearings straight, You might get away with it ;)

The git and linux kernel people keep stable code in "master". New code goes into "next" and is merged after some time (=tested).

The rockbox people keep everything "unstable" in master and have stable branches every few weeks for the releases.

IMHO we want people to easily check out the code (="master" by default) and be happy with it. So it might be a good idea to keep the tested code in "master" and put new developments into

a) "next" b) "unstable" c) "testing"

:)

OTOH we could make .zip files available with tested code and the whole "master" thing is the unstable development version.

Let's sleep about this for a few days :)

Thomas

[agentmnm]

While you were sleeping... ;)

... I was thinking your idea of supplying zip-files is excellent, because it eliminates the hassle of the 'average' user with github. The zip-files need to be hosted 'somewhere' else of course. Maybe the pedelec-forum can provide a home! There is still sourceforge, too.

We can release a version that is considered stable (mostly free of bugs ;) ) and on top of that we should offer explicit testing (or beta) versions - this is how we can come to a stable version in the first place. I think this is the language the public speaks. So there will be an intuitive understanding of version-numbers and beta-versions. It's an old model, but it works - still.

Then the whole master discussion is just a mere technical one and up to you guys, since the 'average' user has nothing to do with it!

I guess there is no way of eliminating the branch called 'master'. What does that mean anyway? It's just a term used to describe the main branch. As per your example, different projects have their own internal definition of what the master is.

My own fork is a master of an upstream master - writing this already confuses me ;)

I go sleep now .... zzzzzzzzZZzzzz

[thomasjfox]

I think the release tagging jenkie does is a good compromise on this topic.

-> you can download a stable release based upon the tag, even as .zip file. That's also the version the APC downloads.

Closing topic for now :)