We have discussed this before and given that very few users would ever test the development branch(es), I'm not going to change our branching policy. I don't think it's unfair to ask users who are aware that the master branch (which is the KiCad development branch) is always in a state of flux to deal with a bit of temporary instability in exchange for some comprehensive testing of new features. Most users seem willing to help with the testing in spite of some minor and sometimes some not so minor inconveniences. I think have development branches would just slow down how quickly new feature bugs would get fixed.
Cheers, Wayne On 12/11/19 9:21 AM, Jonatan Liljedahl wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps it would make sense to adopt something like this? > https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/#the-main-branches > > In short, all development happens on 'develop' branch and only when > this is stable it's merged back to 'master'. One doesn't have to > follow the above model strictly, for example a merge into master > doesn't need to mean "new version to be released". > > Another nice thing is that stuff that are work in progress and not yet > stable can live in a feature branch until it's stable enough to merge > into 'develop'. (For example the new symbol inheritance stuff, which > currently makes the master branch a bit unusable) > > Maybe some of this makes sense, and some not? Just some thoughts while > trying to find a point in the master branch history that doesn't crash > all the time :) > > Cheers > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
