On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen <allan.jen...@qt.io> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > > >>> 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”) > > > > > > I prefer the idea of keeping dev and make it head of 5.x that very clearly > > indicates we want new feature development in 5.x not in qt6. > > > At some point we _do_ want new feature development in Qt 6 (I presume). The > names we choose now will stick, let’s be a bit proactive. At that point qt6 will become dev, and later 6.0 and dev?
'Allan _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development