SilberWitch on Nostr: I agree that main should be updated frequently, in a collaborative, open-source ...
I agree that main should be updated frequently, in a collaborative, open-source environment. I just meant "stable", as in, "installs and doesn't crash when you try to start it up". It isn't really possible to test your software, unless you regularly reach that level of stability, and tests shouldn't have to wait for months.
I actually push everything straight to main from my development fork (because GitHub uses forks as branches and PRs as branch merge-requests), sometimes multiple times per day, so that people following along can see progress.
The problem here, is that they went from release 1.0.3 on July 9 to 2.0.21 yesterday, with only a tiny stability/version fix in-between. Massive leap containing multiple epics, all on a dev branch. To everyone who forked main (and, if you look at the forks, everyone did), or just came by to see what is up, the repo looked dead for over 4 months.
I actually push everything straight to main from my development fork (because GitHub uses forks as branches and PRs as branch merge-requests), sometimes multiple times per day, so that people following along can see progress.
The problem here, is that they went from release 1.0.3 on July 9 to 2.0.21 yesterday, with only a tiny stability/version fix in-between. Massive leap containing multiple epics, all on a dev branch. To everyone who forked main (and, if you look at the forks, everyone did), or just came by to see what is up, the repo looked dead for over 4 months.