04-01-2016, 04:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-01-2016, 04:04 AM by LogicParrot.)
I think that our plans for the "Testing" branch are not practical and will currently not work. We are simply not stable enough and the branch rules are too strict.
I propose a very simple alternative for the current "Testing" branch strategy: Instead of blocking merges for every crash, only block it for very serious crashes like #3117. The testing branch would be almost as recent as master, only a few days behind to give time for the report of these crashes. Also, the testing branch would wait a bit when huge changes are applied.
This would spawn a practical, relatively stable branch. The downloads at the homepage would point to it, and no newcomer would get a server crash just after chatting (as in #3117).
I propose a very simple alternative for the current "Testing" branch strategy: Instead of blocking merges for every crash, only block it for very serious crashes like #3117. The testing branch would be almost as recent as master, only a few days behind to give time for the report of these crashes. Also, the testing branch would wait a bit when huge changes are applied.
This would spawn a practical, relatively stable branch. The downloads at the homepage would point to it, and no newcomer would get a server crash just after chatting (as in #3117).