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 Friday, October 05, 2012 08:11:25 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> On 4.10.2012 17.42, "Rafael Roquetto" 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 true
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 c
pment@qt-project.org>"
> mailto:development@qt-project.org>>,
> "releas...@qt-project.org<mailto:releas...@qt-project.org>"
> mailto:releas...@qt-project.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Development] Preparing to release repackaged version of Qt
> 4.
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 4.8.
On 4.10.2012 17.42, "Rafael Roquetto" 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 true that getting the security fix in is also
>> valuable and then we cert
2012/10/4 Rafael Roquetto
> 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 thou
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 abou
On 4.10.2012 16.02, "Rafael Roquetto" 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 preference is towards
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 s
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
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 digital
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 shoul
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
On 4.10.2012 14.55, "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 the releas
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, comm
On 4.10.2012 14.38, "Stephen Kelly" 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 copyright not
> 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
On 4.10.2012 14.20, "Stephen Kelly" 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
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 06:27:58AM +, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>
>
> 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 Thursday, October 04, 2012 06:27:58 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> On 4.10.2012 0.15, "Rafael Roquetto" 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 release branc
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 w
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 the
On 4.10.2012 0.15, "Rafael Roquetto" 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 Mi
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
>> 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
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?
>>> 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
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 wh
On quarta-feira, 3 de outubro de 2012 17.31.41, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3 October 2012 17:09, Salovaara Akseli
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
> > functionalit
Hi,
On 3 October 2012 17:09, Salovaara Akseli 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
> Digia (sha1 has not b
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 requ
32 matches
Mail list logo
