I think this is a very good idea. I would be a "stable" user - and back to using Puppy again. I stopped using it when too many things did not work out of the box.Pizzasgood wrote:I don't see any big reasons why we couldn't. The main thing, under the traditional method of Puppy development, is that two trees would have to be maintained. No big deal. In the Git method it would also be fairly simple (and more space efficient) - keep separate "stable" and "development" branches.
This is no reflection on anyone's effort here. It is just the way I enjoy using Puppy.
Thank you all for all the effort you put in.
Best wishes,