Being a 3rd party observer and thoroughly reading all messages by Tuukkla I
anyway cannot understand the logic behind having 4.8.3-1 version instead of
suggested 4.8.4 with new copyrights, MinGW and SSL fixes.
What is wrong with releasing it right now and then process all the new
commits since
From: Oleg Shparber troll...@gmail.commailto:troll...@gmail.com
Date: perjantaina 5. lokakuuta 2012 11.57
To: Tuukka Turunen tuukka.turu...@digia.commailto:tuukka.turu...@digia.com
Cc: Rafael Roquetto
rafael.roque...@kdab.commailto:rafael.roque...@kdab.com,
On Friday 05 October 2012 09:14:08 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
The idea was to release as quickly as possible a version with correct
copyrights. And since the MinGW fix has been requested to include that as
well.
We have a large number of platforms to test in, many more than the CI
systems
On Friday, October 05, 2012 08:11:25 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
On 4.10.2012 17.42, Rafael Roquetto rafael.roque...@kdab.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:11:19PM +, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
My preference is towards releasing now and making proper 4.8.4 (with
more
content) later. It is
On sexta-feira, 5 de outubro de 2012 11.43.39, Olivier Goffart wrote:
Just to add some noise:
There was a Qt 3.3.8b (also for copyright change)
So to be consistant, it should be Qt 4.8.3b
Qt 3.3.8b was a license change, when Qt was relicensed to include the GPLv3.
After that, we had the
On 4.10.2012 0.15, Rafael Roquetto rafael.roque...@kdab.com wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 07:49:38PM +, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Thus I think we have two options with the 4.8.3-1:
1. Include the copyright change and MinGW fix
2. Include only the copyright changes and fix
This discussion shows another problem.
ATM it is not possible to release a Qt4 version
(has Qt5 the same problem?) with a proper version
number based on an already released version and
containing only some patches.
This is not only a scenario when the Qt copyright
changes. It could happen all
On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 19:00:14 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Can't you push a commit on top of 4.8.3 that updates the license
files, and tag that commit 4.8.3-1?
If we do that, we should just call it 4.8.4.
Isn't that what happened also when Nokia bought Qt? 4.4.3 was technically
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 06:27:58 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
On 4.10.2012 0.15, Rafael Roquetto rafael.roque...@kdab.com wrote:
What's the problem of branching 4.8.3, cherry-picking
619136931e2c985377348d196d488e429a4858d6 (is that the right patch?), and
tagging it as 4.8.4?
Unfortunately
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 06:27:58AM +, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
snip/
Unfortunately release branches have not been used in the Qt Project - we
have made all 4.8.x releases directly from the 4.8 branch. That is the
root cause of many problems in releasing and an issue that will be
addressed
On 4.10.2012 14.20, Stephen Kelly stephen.ke...@kdab.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 19:00:14 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Can't you push a commit on top of 4.8.3 that updates the license
files, and tag that commit 4.8.3-1?
If we do that, we should just call it 4.8.4.
Isn't that
I see three critical things which must be released asap:
1. the (C) headers change
2. MingW patch.
3. d41dc3e101a694dec98d7bbb582d428d209e5401 - this is the SSL
workaround from Robin.
(Rich, not Robin)
If the release is called 4.8.4, then the SSL security patch must be included,
as we
On 4.10.2012 14.38, Stephen Kelly stephen.ke...@kdab.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 06:27:58 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Then we have more time to change the copyrights to the older
versions, and can still have the installers available for the users.
You mean you're going to change the
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 11:55:23AM +, shane.kea...@accenture.com wrote:
(Rich, not Robin)
My bad, sorry Rich.
If the release is called 4.8.4, then the SSL security patch must be included,
as we said 4.8.4 would include this in the security announcement.
Subject to local law,
On 4.10.2012 14.55, shane.kea...@accenture.com
shane.kea...@accenture.com wrote:
I see three critical things which must be released asap:
1. the (C) headers change
2. MingW patch.
3. d41dc3e101a694dec98d7bbb582d428d209e5401 - this is the SSL
workaround from Robin.
(Rich, not Robin)
If
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 11:53:48AM +, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Naturally everything can be done, it is just a matter how much work it
takes. It is easy to talk if it not you who is doing it...
It has already been decided to start using branches, so later on things
like this will get
Ok, back to the options.
We can issue 4.8.3-1 now with the copyright change and MinGW fix, no other
fixes in. These packages are ready and tested for both open-source and
commercial licensees.
Or we can provide this only for the commercial licensees, if you really
think that the Qt Project
On quinta-feira, 4 de outubro de 2012 13.38.46, Stephen Kelly wrote:
git merge v4.8.4
Better yet:
git merge -s ours v4.8.4
No conflicts.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On quinta-feira, 4 de outubro de 2012 12.31.00, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Ok, back to the options.
We can issue 4.8.3-1 now with the copyright change and MinGW fix, no other
fixes in. These packages are ready and tested for both open-source and
commercial licensees.
I don't like that. If it
Basically what you are doing is telling everyone there is no further
discussion.
My point is, it is not about leaving the users without the given changes. On
the contrary, I even suggested that yet another super critical patch gets
included (SSL), even though this means we are deviating from the
On 4.10.2012 16.02, Rafael Roquetto rafael.roque...@kdab.com wrote:
Basically what you are doing is telling everyone there is no further
discussion.
That is incorrect. What I said is that we can either release 4.8.3-1 now
as the installers are ready, or make adjustments and release later.
My
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:11:19PM +, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
My preference is towards releasing now and making proper 4.8.4 (with more
content) later. It is true that getting the security fix in is also
valuable and then we certainly need to call it 4.8.4.
And what do you think about
2012/10/4 Rafael Roquetto rafael.roque...@kdab.com
Basically what you are doing is telling everyone there is no further
discussion.
My point is, it is not about leaving the users without the given changes.
On
the contrary, I even suggested that yet another super critical patch gets
Hi all,
We are preparing to release a repackaged version of Qt 4.8.3 with Digia
copyrights (Qt 4.8.3-1) very soon. The Qt 4.8.3-1 contains the same
functionality as the Qt 4.8.3 release with copyright changes from Nokia to
Digia (sha1 has not been changed). This copyright change is a legal
Hi,
On 3 October 2012 17:09, Salovaara Akseli akseli.salova...@digia.com wrote:
We are preparing to release a repackaged version of Qt 4.8.3 with Digia
copyrights (Qt 4.8.3-1) very soon. The Qt 4.8.3-1 contains the same
functionality as the Qt 4.8.3 release with copyright changes from Nokia to
On quarta-feira, 3 de outubro de 2012 17.31.41, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Hi,
On 3 October 2012 17:09, Salovaara Akseli akseli.salova...@digia.com
wrote:
We are preparing to release a repackaged version of Qt 4.8.3 with Digia
copyrights (Qt 4.8.3-1) very soon. The Qt 4.8.3-1 contains the
Thiago Macieira wrote:
Can't you push a commit on top of 4.8.3 that updates the license
files, and tag that commit 4.8.3-1?
If we do that, we should just call it 4.8.4.
Isn't that what happened also when Nokia bought Qt? 4.4.3 was technically a
rebranding release. I think that is what
Can't you push a commit on top of 4.8.3 that updates the license
files, and tag that commit 4.8.3-1?
If we do that, we should just call it 4.8.4.
Isn't that what happened also when Nokia bought Qt? 4.4.3 was technically a
rebranding release. I think that is what should happen now as well.
On quarta-feira, 3 de outubro de 2012 19.00.14, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Can't you push a commit on top of 4.8.3 that updates the license
files, and tag that commit 4.8.3-1?
If we do that, we should just call it 4.8.4.
Isn't that what happened also when Nokia bought Qt? 4.4.3 was
Thus I think we have two options with the 4.8.3-1:
1. Include the copyright change and MinGW fix
2. Include only the copyright changes and fix MinGW in the next patch
release
3. Call it 4.8.4 and accept that it can not be fetched from the
repository
4. Call it 4.8.4, apply the copyright
Hi there,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 07:49:38PM +, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Thus I think we have two options with the 4.8.3-1:
1. Include the copyright change and MinGW fix
2. Include only the copyright changes and fix MinGW in the next patch
release
3. Call it 4.8.4 and accept that
31 matches
Mail list logo
