> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Marc Mutz
> On 2017-10-13 14:30, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6?
>
> How about the release team locks the
On 2017-10-13 14:30, Simon Hausmann wrote:
How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6?
How about the release team locks the branch down and cherry-picks bug
fixes from younger branches to 5.6 as it sees fit, and we require a +2
from the module maintainer or the patch's original
mann=qt...@qt-project.org> on
behalf of Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:16:30 PM
To: Jani Heikkinen; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Staging in '5.6'
+1
From: Development <development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-projec
+1
From: Development <development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org> on
behalf of Jani Heikkinen <jani.heikki...@qt.io>
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 11.14
To: "development@qt-project.org" <development@qt-project.org>
Subject: [Development] Staging in
Hi all,
After Qt 5.6.3 release, staging has been restricted in ‘5.6’ and I have
monitored some of the changes trying to come in. I have noticed people
sometimes trying to put some really minor P3 etc fixes in ‘5.6’ even those
really shouldn’t be put in there. With ‘5.6’ we are already in
