[Development] Branching 5.0

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com
Mon Dec 3 14:30:37 CET 2012

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 12:43:17PM +0100, Ahumada Sergio wrote:
> On 12/03/2012 03:46 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
> >   wrote:
> >
> >> On domingo, 2 de dezembro de 2012 14.52.12, Knoll Lars wrote:
> >>>> Most of the pending changes in master today are fixes that need to go into
> >>>> the  5.0 release, so the branch should be merged to stable, not dev.
> >>>
> >>> I have been seeing lots of pending changes in master that are 5.1 material
> >>> and being held back. So this way seems to be the safer approach.
> >>>
> >>> Merging to stable has the disadvantage that we don't see what's going to be
> >>> in 5.0, so I would prefer to rather make it explicit. Pushing changes to
> >>> stable is not such a big problem.
> >>
> >> We can finish the 5.0 changes in master for a week, merge that to stable, then
> >> open it for the queued 5.1 changes and merge that.
> >
> > I'm a bit worried that this would make it harder to get the RC out of the door.
> >
> >> Note that most of the 5.1 changes have a "WIP" in their names and will require
> >> re-pushing to Gerrit for a new commit message. Isn't that prevented by Gerrit?
> >
> > True, these need to be re-pushed to dev in any case.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lars
> >
> Hi,
> So as far as I understand, we should merge 'master' into 'dev' at some 
> point (twice a week?) and then delete the 'master' branch at some point. 
> This is mainly because we don't want to take non-blockers into 'stable'.
> For those who need something into 'stable' which is already merged in 
> 'master' I think that one solution could be to cherry-pick the specific 
> sha1 from 'master' into 'stable' and then push to 'refs/for/stable'. A 
> new CI run is needed though.
ARGH! this is exactly the reason why saying master == dev is just plain
stupid. and no, there is no risk for the rc from merging master to
stable - nobody greenlighted master for 5.1 development.

fwiw, if somebody wants to merge master => stable and there have been no
commits on stable in the mean time, there are two options: make a forced
merge (-no-ff), or just ask me to fast-forward the branch (i already did
that for qtactiveqt. yeah, i'm so evil).

More information about the Development mailing list