On Tue, Apr 11, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) 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.
qt5's 5.9 branch will contain a known-good configuration that built and passed tests for everything in it that the 5.9 branch of each individual repository won't offer you. I think you misunderstood this - I think that Simon was saying that the branches (not the tags) of qt5.git should be considered to be fairly stable for the people working on Qt itself (although obviously, qt5/dev will be more bleeding-edge than qt5/<x>). > > 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"? We have three targets: dev, the stable branch (more or less 5.9, since 5.8.1 is DOA) and the LTS (5.6). Adding an additional "level" there as you seem to be proposing with a "more-stable-than-stable" would be something I would consider new. -- Robin Burchell ro...@crimson.no _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development