Request: provide at least one stable version

[Gaibhne]

Currently, the main page link links to a beta version, and the Download section mentions that 1.3.5 is unsupported. It seems like there is no non-dev, non-beta, supported version at all anymore. There are multiple issues with that such as confused users, company policies against beta/unsupported versions and installer rules that disallow defaulting to beta releases such as chocolatey.

Please provide at least one version as a recommended stable, non-beta one - even if it's just about semantics, the current situation seems very unsatisfying :(

[derceg]

I mentioned it in a comment on another issue about 6 months ago, but the plan several years back was for 1.4 beta 2 to be marked as stable. But then I got sidetracked with other things,

I think that puts me in a bit of a bind now, since I'd need to make at least some updates to 1.4 beta 2 to get it to build and it's also fairly out of date (it was tagged 3 years ago), with quite a few issues fixed since then. But that's probably what makes most sense for a next release.

In terms of releases going forward, I've put a lot of time into thinking about how to go about it. My view is that the previous release system wasn't really working. I typically had two branches and merged bug fixes back into the stable version. But that was difficult to maintain, since the branches would drift apart over time. I also only created a release if I felt that were enough changes, which then tended to delay updates.

I think what would work better would be to simply release a version every so often (perhaps every few months, give or take), as web browsers and a lot of other applications do now. In that system, a somewhat less recent dev version would basically be promoted to stable periodically, regardless of how much or how little has changed.

That also fits in with how I've tended to work on the dev version the last few years. The idea is that it more or less just works and that features that are very incomplete are disabled by default. Dark mode is a very good example of that - it was initially behind a command line flag, then an advanced option, then a regular option. I can't guarantee that nothing breaks, but then again, I can't make that guarantee for a stable version either.

I suppose what I'll do is see if I can get 1.4 beta 2 to build, with the least amount of changes. And then release that. And then shift to releasing a version periodically.

[TandyColorComputer3]

Dark mode is a very good example of that - it was initially behind a command line flag, then an advanced option, then a regular option.

I'm sorry, but I can't find the dark mode setting in Explorer++ version 1.4.0.2293 (64-bit build) for the life of me - if it is a regular option. Is this available? Thanks

[derceg]

I'm sorry, but I can't find the dark mode setting in Explorer++ version 1.4.0.2293 (64-bit build) for the life of me - if it is a regular option. Is this available? Thanks

Hi @TandyColorComputer3 , dark mode is present in the dev version.