> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: > > 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).
Okey, so we _will_ have parallel Qt 5 and Qt 6 feature development, and in that case need two “dev” branches. I argue that instead of naming them ‘dev’ and ‘qt6’ like proposed, we use explicit names, either: - 6.0 and 5.15 (if there’s no 6.1 branched 6.0 is “dev. If there’s no 5.16 branched, 5.15 is “dev”) Or - 6.x and 5.x (and retire the ‘dev’ branch) If retiring the ‘dev’ branch in favour of explicit 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 etc, then at least we should choose a Qt 6 branch that is one of the two options above, either 6.0 or 6.x, not ‘qt6’. Tor Arne _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
