On 12/16/11 8:48 PM, ext Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
wrote:
On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to
be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Gerrit as a patch (in the likes
of what has
Hi,
On 12/15/2011 10:31 PM, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchellrobin...@viroteck.net
wrote:
Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt 4.8?
I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
policy, it
On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to
be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Gerrit as a patch (in the likes
of what has been done to update the Qt5 sha1, e.g.
On Friday 16 December 2011 12:54:40 Shaw Andy wrote:
On 12/16/11 1:18 PM, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2011 12:48:32 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
One idea is to have an automated process that
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:53:12 sinan.tanil...@nokia.com wrote:
We hope to move Qt 4 to Gerrit soon. This should enable faster handling of
contributions.
Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell robin...@viroteck.net wrote:
Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt 4.8?
I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
policy, it needs to be documented and communicated somewhere. You
On Thursday 15 December 2011 22:31:32 Robin Burchell wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell robin...@viroteck.net
wrote:
Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt
4.8?
I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
