> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen <allan.jen...@qt.io> wrote: > > 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?
No, because Qt 5 will still have overlapping “dev” work according to Lars, so we can’t rename it to ‘dev’. Tor Arne _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development