Hi, How do you define "stable"?
The best criteria I have to offer at this point is a pass of all tests of all modules in a combination. That is a qt5 build and that is why it is - by the metric of test failures - more stable at the untested combination of branch tips of the modules. That is the criteria for developers of Qt. For the users of Qt only tags go further, because they come after release test automation- an additional step of QA. Simon > On 11. Apr 2017, at 18:16, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) <bstot...@ford.com> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:14 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote: >> I think that what you are asking for is reasonable. I think the set of sha1s >> of qt5.git satisfy that requirement to the best of the project's ability. > > In this case I think they do not, based on all of the commits to the 5.8 > branches that aren't included in the v5.8.0 tag (last available). If those > were to be included in a 5.8.1 release, I would agree with you. > >> Why would the tip of the 5.8 branch of all modules be superior to for >> example the sha1s of qt5's 5.9 branch at this point? > > Are you saying 5.9 Beta is more stable than the HEAD of the 5.8 branches? At > some point the 5.9 branches will be more stable, but I don't see any reason > to believe it is true now. > >> For users of the product we can only point to tags. For developers all >> active branches should be good enough. I >> find it hard to imagine introducing a third "level" that is good enough for >> "some" but clearly not all. Unless there >> is a consensus to define and introduce this new way of identifying a >> development branch. > > Right, but doesn't that imply keeping 5.8 active until 5.9 is at least as > stable? How is it "a new way"? > > Brett > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
