[Development] requesting an own 4.8-blackberry10 branch on gitorious

Sean Harmer sean.harmer at kdab.com
Tue Dec 18 12:05:44 CET 2012

On Tuesday 18 December 2012 11:00:56 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> On 18.12.2012 12.25, "Sean Harmer" <sean.harmer at kdab.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday 18 December 2012 10:00:25 Vladimir Minenko wrote:
> >> > Sounds reasonable.
> >> > Laszlo
> >> 
> >> Folks, how can we conclude on this?
> >> 
> >> There were two votes "Sounds reasonable", one comment with doubts from
> >> Tuukka and one more "natural" from Sergio.
> >> 
> >> How do we proceed now? More comments? Some details for the expressed
> >>
> >>doubts?
> >>
> >> Some actions?
> >
> >I vote for yes, create a vendor branch, but then I suggested it to Peter
> >in
> >the first place on irc.
> >
> >It keeps the work flow the same, the legal process is unchanged, has
> >precedent, and allows the work to still be done in the open without
> >causing
> >unnecessary delays.
> In case we decide to proceed with creation of a vendor branch, is it
> planned to be a temporary solution or something permanent?

I suppose that entirely depends upon what gets committed there. The general 
idea is to keep this branch as the minimum set of patches needed for this 
platform that cannot be merged into the Qt mainline. Peter already mentioned 
one such patch.

The case of expediting patches in this branch is to allow this to happen in 
the open in the spirit of the Qt project. Wherever possible the idea is to 
upstream the patches into the Qt mainline so that the vendor branch remains as 
close as possible to the official Qt Project version.

Vladimir and Peter may have more to add of course.

All the best,

Dr Sean Harmer | sean.harmer at kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company
Tel. Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090, USA +1-866-777-KDAB(5322)
KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-independent software solutions

More information about the Development mailing list