On quinta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2013 11.53.42, Turunen Tuukka wrote: > On 21.2.2013 10.07, "Peter Kümmel" <syntheti...@gmx.net> wrote: > >On 19.02.2013 20:29, Turunen Tuukka wrote: > >> We have the packages ready and tested with minor > >> > > > fixes compared to RC1 (21st Dec). If we re-do these > > > packages it is a significant effort with very limited benefits. > > > >It seems to me this already happens before: > >you first do the packaging and then ask on the list for a go. > > > >I would say this is the wrong order, you should first coordinate with > >the qt-project and then invest Digia's time. > > > >This mainly saves YOUR time and budget. > > This is incorrect assumption as we have discussed this before making the > RC1 - it just took a lot of time due to other release creation activities > to continue the releasing work, so it seems that some persons (at least > Thiago) just noticed it now when we are making RC2.
I noticed the email and I was quite happy we were making new releases. I even referred to it when I wrote the shmget security fix announcement by looking at the version number we were preparing for 4.7. What I had not noticed was the actual *content* of the branch that the releases were coming from. It just seemed to me that the engineers were using a different repository to apply small fixes for the package creation (something we routinely do). It didn't occur to me to even think that the releases were not coming from the original branch, but instead from one with over 140 cherry-picked commits. That's what I'm objecting to now. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
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
