On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø <tor.arne.ves...@qt.io<mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen <allan.jen...@qt.io<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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’. We can (and should) rename it to dev once the last 5.x version (presumably 5.15) reaches feature freeze (ie. in a year from now). Cheers, Lars
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
