Yes, I know.yellowled wrote:Yes, but not all of those need a seperate branch. Most end users probably don't use a git checkout, so they could just use release zip files (we can do those pretty confortably on GitHub as well, we don't need to wait for SF).Lux wrote:Currently I see at least three types of "users":
* Developers need access to everything
* Testers need access to betas and fixes
* Endusers need access to stable (and sometimes to fixes)
But honestly, it would be much easier to update for end user if only a diff would be transferred. This is what Git does perfectly well.
But agreed, there are not many endusers that have shell access to their web directories.
On the other hand, if I find a bug in stable, I do not want to wait for it to be fixed in the next dot-release, even if it is not a critical one. (The criticals would be fixed immediately and a dot-release would be published).
Yes!yellowled wrote:That leaves us with devs and testers. Devs usually “need” (I think “prefer” is the better term) the current state of development. Testers usually need the upcoming stable. If I'm not mistaken, this could be done with our current setup (master = current state, 2.0 branch = next stable) – but testers using a git checkout would need to use the 2.0 branch, not master.
Yip.yellowled wrote:What that leaves us with is whether people (meaning devs or testers) are more used to having the current state in master or not, right?