Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

Lars Knoll (15 February 2019 09:03) wrote > * Don’t remove any functions from wip/qt6 unless they are marked as > deprecated in dev or else you have discussed it on the mailing list > and gotten maintainer approval for the removal To avoid conflicts on merging, when deprecating in dev and

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

Let’s also conclude this thread. Majority consensus was that we need a branch and most votes went towards wip/qt6. So let’s use that for Qt 6 related work and create the required branch. The following rules apply: * We CI test the branch on (at least) a reduced set of platforms/compilers.

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 16 Jan 2019, at 10:08, Lars Knoll wrote: > >> On 16 Jan 2019, at 09:47, Alex Blasche wrote: >> >>> From: Development on behalf of Lars >>> Knoll >>> For now I’d like to limit this to qtbase, as that’s where pretty much all >>> Qt 6 related work happens, >>> and we need to do some

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 16 Jan 2019, at 09:47, Alex Blasche wrote: > >> From: Development on behalf of Lars >> Knoll >> For now I’d like to limit this to qtbase, as that’s where pretty much all Qt >> 6 related work happens, >> and we need to do some work on the CI side to prepare the other modules for >> Qt 6

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 00:21:54 PST Lars Knoll wrote: > * We regularly merge dev into it > * BC breakages are fine > * SC breakages require a maintainer approval and a Changelog entry marking > this as a source incompatible change * All functions you’d like to remove > in qt6 need to be

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 14:25, Lars Knoll wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 14:00, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> > On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > >> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as > >> we > >> handle feature branches. The qt6/6/next/whatever branch would be for > >> development > >> that can't be put into dev yet as it is not suitable for the

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 14:00, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: >>> >>> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as we >>> handle feature branches. The

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 14:00:50 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > >> > >> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as > >> we handle feature

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: > > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: >> >> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as we >> handle feature branches. The qt6/6/next/whatever branch would be for >> development >> that can't be

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > > > > On 15.1.2019 14.32, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø >> > wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen >>> > wrote: On Tuesday,

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15.1.2019 14.32, Lars Knoll wrote: >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø > > wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > On 15 Jan

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:32, Lars Knoll wrote: > > 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). Or just go with 6.x, or 6.0, like I’ve proposed. Tor Arne ___

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen 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 mailto:allan.jen...@qt.io>> wrote:

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen wrote: > > On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >>> > On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > > >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll wrote: > >>> > >>> Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen wrote: > > On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> >>> Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea was to keep ‘dev’ for 5.x >>> development and ‘qt6’ for Qt 6 related

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll 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

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:06, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > 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’. That should be "If retiring the ‘dev’ branch

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll 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

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:44, Tor Arne Vestbø mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Lars Knoll mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:17, Tor Arne Vestbø mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Lars Knoll wrote: >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:17, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >> >> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> >>> Can the Gerrit/CI folks please create that branch? >> >> Going forward we will now have “dev” development in both Qt 5 and Qt 6.

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:17, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll wrote: >> >> Can the Gerrit/CI folks please create that branch? > > Going forward we will now have “dev” development in both Qt 5 and Qt 6. > > Can we please use explicit version names instead of

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll wrote: > > Can the Gerrit/CI folks please create that branch? Going forward we will now have “dev” development in both Qt 5 and Qt 6. Can we please use explicit version names instead of arbitrary named “dev” and “qt6” branches? dev ==> 5.13 -> 5.14,

[Development] Branch for Qt 6

Hi all, I’d like to have us create a branch for Qt 6 in qtbase. Different people are starting to collect quite some patches and we now need one place where those come together. For now I’d like to limit this to qtbase, as that’s where pretty much all Qt 6 related work happens, and we need to