On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Andreas Kling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/17/2010 06:54 PM, ext [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> You possibly had discussed that, but why not make 2.2 to be 2.1, since >>>> the later is not release yet. >> >> QtWebKit 2.2 is indeed a bit confusing name for the branch that Ademar >> just created. It could be called 2.1.1 (or something like that) instead, >> since the intent is only to back-port HTML5 media support on mobile >> platforms to once it is ready. No new C++ APIs should be needed for that. I >> don't think we'll have to maintain 2.1 and this branch separately since >> they'll be very much the same. > > Can we hear from someone who is *for* this? It seems that everyone is > against it so far :) >
Henry, do we have confirmation that 2.2 will obsolete 2.1 by the time it's released? (By obsoleting I mean it'll be released as an update for devices and SDKs running 2.1). Otherwise calling it 2.1.X won't make sense, as it'll remove the option of releasing updates (e.g. security fixes) for 2.1. If you confirm that (I know it's not completely your call... it's a decision that will impact several stakeholders), I'll rename the branch to 2.1-future or 2.1.wip. Ideally a minor revision should not include new features, but releasing it as an update will be less painful than keeping two versions alive. Anyway, we could call it 2.1.plusafewstuff, 2.1.special or 2.1.veeeerynice. The problem is not in the release number itself. It's in the fact that we're working on two stabilization versions which will be released on still undefined dates and sharing mostly the same codebase. And that fragmentation problem is what we'll concentrate on fixing for next versions. Merry Christmas ;-) - Ademar -- Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. <[email protected]> OpenBossa - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia _______________________________________________ webkit-qt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
