On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:44, Tor Arne Vestbø <tor.arne.ves...@qt.io<mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io<mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:17, Tor Arne Vestbø <tor.arne.ves...@qt.io<mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io<mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> wrote: Can the Gerrit/CI folks please create that branch? Going forward we will now have “dev” development in both Qt 5 and Qt 6. Can we please use explicit version names instead of arbitrary named “dev” and “qt6” branches? dev ==> 5.13 -> 5.14, etc qt6 ==> 6.0 -> 6.1 So the idea would be to always branch the next feature branch away? Yes. Probably quite a change in names, and it would still mean that we have two branches where feature development happens. Yes, we won’t get around that unless we decide to keep all feature development to the Qt 6 series from the moment we declare the 6.0 branch feature frozen. If we do the latter, we can force push dev to be 6.0 at that point, and leave the 5.x series as bug fixes to the 5.13/5.14 branches A branch enters stability phase once the next upcoming minor branch has been branched off from it. Or, if we must keep a “generic” master branch perhaps they can be: dev ==> 5.x qt6 ==> 6.x This one was actually my proposal ;-) That’s at least clearer than the dev and qt6 names. Also, for the latter, encoding “qt” into the branch name is kind of meaningless/redundant :) Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea was to keep ‘dev’ for 5.x development and ‘qt6’ for Qt 6 related development. At some point (when 5.15 is branched) we’d basically rename qt6 to dev (because at that point there’s no 5.x anymore). Cheers, Lars
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
