> -----Original Message----- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Marc Mutz
> On 2017-10-13 14:30, Simon Hausmann wrote: > > How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6? > > How about the release team locks the branch down and cherry-picks bug fixes > from younger branches to 5.6 as it sees fit, and we require a +2 from the > module > maintainer or the patch's original author on the 5.6 branch? This would not work as only the developer involved would really know which one is worth backporting. Considering the total number of changes it does not scale either. > I don't see why any sane developer would go to the length of preparing a > change for 5.6 if he has no idea about whether the release team will merge or > reject it. On the principle issue here I think I agree though (see below). The reasoning above is not a good one IMO. After all you can ask before you create the backported patch. The principle problem/patch is already known in the younger branch. > From: Simon Hausmann > The person best qualified to decide how minor or major a change is is the > corresponding module maintainer, not necessarily the release team. >How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6? This gets my vote too. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
