On Friday, 20 de January de 2012 14.24.58, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:58:40PM -0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > > My personal preference, seeing how busy everyone is with 5.0 alone, > > not to mention 4.8, is the third option. Turning over maintenance does > > not mean "anything goes", but it means Digia engineers and the rest of > > the community work on the 4.7 branch inside the Qt project. Commits > > should still be reviewed and a Qt project release should still happen. > > I'm sure there are Linux distribution packagers who can help in the > > release testing for their own maintenance updates. > > > > I propose we nominate a release maintainer/manager, who is responsible > > for setting the priorities for that release. > > this doesn't address several issues i've already raised: > - who's going to review stuff? we already *know* that branch maintainers > cannot do the job properly. it must be the domain experts, but your > proposal is explicitly about freeing them from this duty. so what > about quality criteria (and the linked trademark question)?
"Digia and the rest of the community" means we work together, including proper
reviewing of patches. But remember approver rights apply everywhere, so simple
and important bug fixes could be approved by any approver who feels confident
about that.
As a maintainer, I'll keep an eye out for what's happening in 4.7, but as long
as nothing seems untoward, I'll be happy to let others do the fixing,
approving, and setting of direction to the ultra-stable maintenance release.
If I do, however, need to step in, I might have to say "sorry, those fixes
should not go in". So anyone who has an interest in keeping 4.7 going has an
interest in ensuring there are enough approvers to make that happen.
> - re-activating the branch would have some ugly implications on git: the
> branch is cherry-picked (both ways, in fact). we can either merge it
> back and get all those duplicated commits, or we can leave it unmerged
> and thus "lose" the tags on it. the latter is the current state, and
> is way easier to explain in the context of it being a vendor branch,
> than if the branch and tags are retroactively promoted to "official"
> status.
4.7 should be merged into 4.8. I don't get what the difficulty is.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
