On Monday 13 March 2017 12:33:32 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:38:47PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 March 2017 13:13:17 Lars Knoll wrote: > > > > Let’s conclude this topic now by moving on towards 5.9 as Tuukka > > > > proposed. After some thinking I also agree that this is the best > > > > course of action from where we are right now. > > > > > > This also implies that bug fixes should now get pushed to the 5.9 > > > branch and we should close the 5.8 branch soon. > > > > I disagree. Even if you cannot produce releases from 5.8 anymore, > > that's our stable branch. > > that may be the case, but doesn't necessarily mean that you need to > upstream your fixes there. closing it only affects other users of the > 5.8 tip who want your fixes. probably not that many.
All Linux distributions, unless they decide to skip 5.8 completely, due to lack of upstream support? > otoh, the branch being open costs CI cycles and causes some forward > merging effort, while benefitting a marginal number of people. > > another point is that most tqtc employees are actually following the > management order and are neglecting 5.8 (for two months now), which > means that it's by far not as stable as one would want it to be. > > so i guess it's time to give in and officially close the branch. Hurray for Open Governance... -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development