The speed of development?

I hope this does not come back as negative, but a suggestion and consideration.
Note, I am not a customer yet, but keeping a close eye on Cwicly!

I notice that develpment is very active, and there seems to be a lot of new features, and conseqently a good deal of follow up bug fixes.

So I wondered if there might be two brances of development ?
One a more stable branch that only has urgent bug fixes…
And another for the more keen user testing out new features.

Is this a possibility, it would make me more confident in using Cwickly for clients ?

Best regards, Dave

Agree, the stable version would be fine. Right now there is a lot of updates and a lot of “check work” if everything works well.

Why not, but after months of use there was NO trouble with the updates.


@weedor Same experience. I like how the block architecture works in term of deprecation. Existing content is not messed up even if there is some bug in the new update. Not until you update the content. I don’t have a live Cwicly site yet and all are staging sites waiting to go live. They are on autoupdates without any trouble. I didn’t had auto update enabled for even Elementor staging sites due to constant fear of breakages. Cwicly Team releases fixes at insane pace. Look at WP 6.1 release time, bug report and patch release.

Maintaining 2 branches will increase the workload for the team. Another option can be to disable auto update and making an update after reviewing the forum.


I think there is a significant difference between Cwicly and other tools in general.
Not talking about which one handles things “better” in that regard, just to provide a better context.

Important stuff, and in many instances also general things, once reported, get addressed immediately in most cases and a fix is provided like in an instant (hours to few days).

Other tools, in most cases, collect reports first for some time and provide fixes on a more irregular basis and larger scale.

Based on that, I can’t see any significant benefit or added value. Like @dranzer already pointed out, it’s rather suggesting that users would experience disadvantages.


I personally would do wish to see a beta branch in the future. (as not all updates went flawless on a ~ 1 year time scale)
Probably currently it’s not the case as user base (that would actually do beta testing) is not big enough to bring major benefits. But maybe after the free version is launched, would be a good idea.