On Sunday 10 August 2014 18:51:53 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:02PM +0000, Knoll Lars wrote: > > >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. > > > > Yeah, that caught me a bit by surprise as well. > > why would it?
Because it changed compared to previous times. It's irrelevant that the previous times required such an action for technical reasons: it happened that way. Now it happened differently. > > As said, I’m ok to commit it to the 5.4 branch during the next week. > > to me this is a rather obvious interpretation of "freeze exception", > which is why it's beyond me why anyone would get upset about me NOT > holding up integrations on dev even longer than planned (which would be > a logical consequence of delaying the 5.4 branch creation). I wouldn't be upset if you had done what you say here. You didn't. You did block dev by introducing a broken change and did not enable 5.4 (which should include the moving of the pending changes from dev to 5.4). > speaking of which, dev will be opened again early tuesday. So it's not open. > fwiw, the first batch of retargetings is done. you can already stage, > even though it probably won't start integrating until monday. Ok, so I can get back to work around midnight Wednesday UTC. Great. -- 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