On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" <syntheti...@gmx.net>: >> I also think these branches are overkill. >> >> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it is so far away that it could be >> in master. >> >> 2.2 should be always stable so that at any time a short living 2.2.x could >> be branched until the release is done. After the tag 2.2.x will be deleted >> then. >> >> Similar to >> https://wiki.qt.io/Branch_Guidelines >> >> Peter > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3
We discussed this sort of option: Branch 2.2.x now and continue development towards 2.2.0 there. Then development targeted at 2.3 can continue in master. But most people didn't like this option. Most importantly, Scott didn't like it, or didn't feel comfortable with it, and it's his call. So master is still what will become 2.2.0, and it is closed except for absolutely essential fixes. But people wanted to be able to continue development, so that's why we have 2.3-staging. The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in git branches rather than to try to keep track of them via milestones or keywords or whatever in trac. It's also easier for people to backport these fixes around the same time they did them than to do it weeks or months later. We're not really "think[ing] about four stable releases in parallel", and certainly I do not expect that the staging branches are going to get any kind of testing. Once 2.2.x is created, it will get testing, and at that point 2.2.1-staging will be merged into it, and then will politely disappear. Same, eventually, for 2.2.2-staging. Richard
