Koehne Kai added, to the discussion of priorities and LTS,
> The current descriptions of the priorities in JIRA [1] IMO aren't too
> helpful, since they focus too much on impact on a release.
The release is in the (possibly distant) future when prioritising; and,
when doing triage, I don't know
Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016, 15:13:10 CET schrieb Thiago Macieira:
> On quarta-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2016 22:38:56 PST Michael Möllney wrote:
> > So my question or suggestion to reduced bug fixing time is:
> >
> > - Is there or should there be an authority/committee that decides early,
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
> Welbourne Edward
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:33 AM
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.6 LTS -
On quarta-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2016 22:38:56 PST Michael Möllney wrote:
>> - Is there or should there be a Wiki-Page giving rules of thump, what
>> inconsistent between API docs and actual behavior is a bug that
>> should be fixed in 5.6 LTS?
(I like the concept of a "rule of thump", but
On quarta-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2016 22:38:56 PST Michael Möllney wrote:
> So my question or suggestion to reduced bug fixing time is:
>
> - Is there or should there be an authority/committee that decides early,
> if a bug is worth to be fixed for 5.6 LTS?
>Maybe in bugreports.qt.io: if
Now (finally) Qt 5.6.0 LTS knocks at the door (RC published today)
I appreciate the decisions to support this 5.6.x release for at least 3
years, plus possible time extension.
Looking for a definition what this actually means, I could find in
Planet Qt
