On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote: > >It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's > >also how > >we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the > >procedure > >without announcing ahead of time and letting people comment. > > I think I’m missing a mail here. But if this is about me asking for a > different class name for QvolumeInfo, I don’t see this as an issue (see > below).
It's about integrating the class. When Marc asked for a freeze exception, I suggested and you agreed that we would have the weekend to work on this and that the 5.4 branch would be created on Monday. Just like it was done for the past 4 feature releases. Well, the branch was created on Saturday halfway through the day and the "dev" branch moved to 5.5 through administrative action. That's the first time this happens and there was no discussion or prior warning. We lose 24 hours worth of integration+fix attempts and another 36 hours due to my unavailability in the new integration window. So other people please take care of reviewing and approving Ivan's changes in the next 48 hours. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development