# Stable branch compatibility with discourse\_docker and plugins
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679
**Category:** Self-hosting
**Tags:** stable
**Created:** [14 mei 2019 om 10:54 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679 "2019-05-14T10:54:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@david](https://meta.discourse.org/u/david)
#### Post date: [14 mei 2019 om 13:28 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/21 "2019-05-14T13:28:11Z")
I guess I’m trying to work out what you would use the tags for? If discourse\_docker always works with the latest stable, you can always use the master branch of discourse\_docker… 🤔
---
### Author:  [@Stephen](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Stephen)
#### Post date: [14 mei 2019 om 13:31 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/22 "2019-05-14T13:31:58Z")
> [@david](#):
>
> As far as I know, [this should be resolved](https://meta.discourse.org/t/failing-to-rebuild-app-on-discourse-since-may-7/117121/13) and is no longer being investigated. If it’s still broken, let us know. The `sed` fix is a bad idea, as it will probably break more things in future.
That topic doesn’t cite a specific fix or commit, if it _has_ been resolved it would be good to see something to the affirtmative in that sense. More than happy to nuke the sed fix if so.
---
### Author:  [@david](https://meta.discourse.org/u/david)
#### Post date: [14 mei 2019 om 13:33 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/23 "2019-05-14T13:33:25Z")
Sure, I added the github link to @Falco’s post in the other topic. Here is is: [FIX: We need a newer mini\_racer for ruby 2.6.3 · discourse/discourse@99dd426 · GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/99dd426b12210c93c728a6a8993b9a78430b3b5e)
---
### Author:  [@Falco](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Falco)
#### Post date: [14 mei 2019 om 13:46 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/24 "2019-05-14T13:46:40Z")
> [@Stephen](#):
>
> That’s the point, stable in this sense means ‘infrequently changed’.
Well, there is a reason we:
- don’t default anyone to stable
- don’t recommend anyone to run stable
We run thousands of instances of Discourse. And since we deploy from tests-passed we have lots of testing on that.
When you actively go away from the standard we suggest, it’s going to be less tested. Even then we issued a whole new release to fix the issue in the same day we got a good report.
---
### Author:  [@crispygoth](https://meta.discourse.org/u/crispygoth)
#### Post date: [15 mei 2019 om 15:43 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/25 "2019-05-15T15:43:59Z")
I would personally agree with the idea of tagging `discourse_docker` with the same version as the stable release. We currently use Puppet to automate the process of bootstrapping new Docker containers, which we pin to a specific stable release of Docker (we’re in the kind of corporate environment where the idea of running “beta” software is basically a no-go). It’d be nice if I could use that same version number as a tag in the `discourse_docker` repo and know that the version of the launcher I’m using is going to be able to build the version of Discourse I want to build.
---
### Author:  [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)
#### Post date: [15 mei 2019 om 23:51 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/26 "2019-05-15T23:51:57Z")
> [@crispygoth](#):
>
> we’re in the kind of corporate environment where the idea of running “beta” software is basically a no-go
> [@Falco](#):
>
> don’t recommend anyone to run stable
Just a note that the people who maintain the software claim that the `beta` branch is more reliable than `stable`.
---
### Author:  [@Stephen](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Stephen)
#### Post date: [16 mei 2019 om 00:11 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/27 "2019-05-16T00:11:44Z")
Quite, we live in an age where governments practice agile principles and rapidly release software under beta to their citizens.
Here’s an idea, let’s drop the ‘b’ from stable 😃
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [16 mei 2019 om 01:39 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/28 "2019-05-16T01:39:57Z")
I always felt farming or gardening was the best metaphor for actual software development because it is a living thing. You’re growing things and that takes regular upkeep. Get busy growin’ or get busy dyin’
---
### Author:  [@Stephen](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Stephen)
#### Post date: [16 mei 2019 om 01:41 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/29 "2019-05-16T01:41:06Z")
So ~~stable~~ stale is the equivalent of a fallow field? 😃
---
### Author:  [@spajus](https://meta.discourse.org/u/spajus)
#### Post date: [16 mei 2019 om 07:25 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/30 "2019-05-16T07:25:14Z")
I get it now, but your “beta” releases being more stable than non-beta is really a confusing mixed message for the rest of the world. I get it, you are developing an in-house product, which you have interest to keep growing and up to date at all times, and you are giving it away for free to everyone, but then it seems there are two choices:
- Use `tests-passed` and keep updating it every couple of days, and help you fix all the the bugs and issues
- Let you host it for us
Surely both scenarios are win-win for Discourse as a company. I can’t blame you for that 🙂
But really, you should then just remove all non-beta tags, unless you want it to be “open source with a catch”.
---
### Author:  [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)
#### Post date: [16 mei 2019 om 11:14 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/31 "2019-05-16T11:14:47Z")
Running Tests-passed and upgrading when there is a beta or a specific problem is what most people do. That’s a couple of three times a year.
If you’re in a corporate environment with uptime/stability expectations, then you should run a staging server.
---
### Author:  [@spajus](https://meta.discourse.org/u/spajus)
#### Post date: [16 mei 2019 om 11:23 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/32 "2019-05-16T11:23:46Z")
> [@pfaffman](#):
>
> Running Tests-passed and upgrading when there is a beta or a specific problem is what most people do. That’s a couple of three times a year.
Next time I’ll try to do just that (will use `test-passed`). It’s much more clear now after you explained it.
---
### Author:  [@EddieOne](https://meta.discourse.org/u/EddieOne)
#### Post date: [17 mei 2019 om 01:29 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/33 "2019-05-17T01:29:54Z")
Yeah, I’m with Tomas.
---
### Author:  [@ljpp](https://meta.discourse.org/u/ljpp)
#### Post date: [23 mei 2019 om 10:59 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/34 "2019-05-23T10:59:58Z")
This has been discussed before, but I still support the unpopular opinion of running _stable_ for _stability_.
Our site has been on the stable branch for about 3 years and 603.000 posts later the experience is mostly (95%) good. The roling branches were way too volatile with UI changes, breakage and other surprises. We are especially careful about introducing change to the UX.
Sure, after every major upgrade we often need to update our slightly customized themes, adapt to other changes and usually also report some bugs.
---
### Author:  [@thabbs](https://meta.discourse.org/u/thabbs)
#### Post date: [25 februari 2020 om 11:17 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/35 "2020-02-25T11:17:33Z")
Just stumbled over this topic after having issues after upgrading to 2.3.10 (stable).
Some of the plugins used on our sites recently were upgraded to be compatible to more recent versions of discourse (e.g. discourse-assign). This upgrade seemed to have negative impact.
Just have changed the plugin installation to refer to stable branches of the plugins. Unfortunately not every plugin knows a stable branch. That’s an additional inconsistency within the Discourse eco system.
I do not even know if my change would have any positive impact to the Discourse installation.
Yes, please, defining stable branches within Discourse itself and all plugins would help to make it more stable. Beforehand there must be a clear definition of “stability” though 🙂
Following this approach cannot be an option:
“Just a note that the people who maintain the software claim that the `beta` branch is more reliable than `stable`.”
---
### Author:  [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)
#### Post date: [25 februari 2020 om 13:39 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/36 "2020-02-25T13:39:57Z")
Which plugins are you having trouble with?
---
### Author:  [@thabbs](https://meta.discourse.org/u/thabbs)
#### Post date: [25 februari 2020 om 14:47 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/37 "2020-02-25T14:47:54Z")
at least discourse-assign.
Changed the following plugin installs to use a stable plugin branch and could solve the issue with missing SVG icons:
- git clone --branch stable [GitHub - discourse/discourse-assign: Plugin for assigning users to a topic · GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse-assign.git)
- git clone --branch stable [GitHub - discourse/discourse-solved: Allow accepted answers on topics · GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse-solved.git)
- git clone --branch stable [GitHub - discourse/discourse-canned-replies: Adds a means to insert templates from the composer. · GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse-canned-replies.git)
---
### Author:  [@system](https://meta.discourse.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [3 februari 2024 om 11:59 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/38 "2024-02-03T11:59:29Z")
---
### Author:  [@JammyDodger](https://meta.discourse.org/u/JammyDodger)
#### Post date: [3 februari 2024 om 12:46 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/39 "2024-02-03T12:46:28Z")
Little update for this one - I think our #official plugins and theme components have a compatibility file now. 🥳 eg:
>
---
### Author:  [@JammyDodger](https://meta.discourse.org/u/JammyDodger)
#### Post date: [3 februari 2024 om 12:46 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679/40 "2024-02-03T12:46:42Z")
[Vorige pagina](https://meta.discourse.org/t/stable-branch-compatibility-with-discourse-docker-and-plugins/117679.md?page=1)