Giving MCServer a version number

[NiLSPACE]

Just to get it straight, the release branch is a branch where the stable code is. Once we think the master branch is stable enough we merge the changes from master into release?

[worktycho]

For an example have a look at Debian does.
Release is where stable code is.
However I think its probably better to have a branch between master and release. So master gets changes has they happen, and we have a second branch, testing, which holds the version we are stabilizing. Otherwise we have to stop merging features into master every so often or have stable builds be unstable at the beginning of each release cycle.

[NiLSPACE]

So you want to do it in the same way as how Microsoft is doing the Windows 10 previews. They have a fast (Between Master Release) preview, and a slow (Release) preview. If you choose to use the fast Windows 10 then you are the first to get new features, but it can be unstable while if you choose the slow version you get the features later, but they are more stable. They also of course develop features without releasing them immediatly (master).

Yeah, I'm all for it Though we must remember to update them once in a while :| When I just joined MCServer we also had release builds, but we usualy forgot to update/create new ones.

[worktycho]

I'm willing to take on responsibility for releases, I'm already responsibly for getting coverity scan's done.

We still need @xoft's opinion. And I'd like to hear from @bearbin regarding builds.

[xoft]

I like the idea, as long as I don't end up being the person doing the merges

[bearbin]

I like @worktycho's proposed idea, in fact it's pretty much identical to the earlier proposed one on GitHub. https://github.com/mc-server/MCServer/issues/874

[worktycho]

@bearbin, I've created a testing branch and a release to mark the first testing release. Can you set up builds for the branch?

[LogicParrot]

Is a "trunk" branch coming soon?
(Though I personally would have called it "dev")

---

Oh, silly me, it's the old Master branch.

[bearbin]

Yep.

@worktycho can you confirm this flow as correct?

master -> testing -> stable

where master is updated all the time, and merged into testing every 2/3 weeks, bugs are fixed in testing then merged back into master, then after 2/3 weeks testing is promoted into stable.

[tonibm19]

Seems a good system