On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:07:03AM +0100, ext Sergio Ahumada wrote: > On 12/15/2011 10:31 PM, ext Robin Burchell wrote: > > Actually, when I read this a second time looking for something > > relevant, I see the complete opposite: > > > > "11. Make sure you submit against the lowest applicable branch from > > which a release is still planned. Cherry-picks ("backports") are > > frowned upon, while forward-merging to more recent branches happens on > > a regular basis." > right. exception added.
> Actually, if we move Qt 4.x to Gerrit, the automatic integration between > Qt 4.(x-1) and Qt 4.x should be handled differently. > > One idea is to have an automated process that *propose* the changes to > be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Gerrit as a patch (in the likes > of what has been done to update the Qt5 sha1, e.g. > http://codereview.qt-project.org/11239), but at this stage is just an idea. > i think just proposing is "too weak" - that's nothing more than a cron job which submits merge changes to gerrit. i would make it auto-approve the merges. merge conflicts would shoot off a mail to QA/RM right away, and failed integrations would appear on gerrit anyway. what i'm not sure about is whether this should be actually a cron job at all or rather a manual process. in creator we're trying to keep a "once weekly, unless somebody does important bug fixes" regimen to keep the number of merge commits low. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development