[Development] Starting preparations for Qt 5.1

Knoll Lars Lars.Knoll at digia.com
Mon Mar 18 12:29:54 CET 2013


On 3/18/13 12:04 PM, "Sean Harmer" <sean.harmer at kdab.com> wrote:

>On Monday 18 March 2013 11:00:57 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>> On 18.3.2013 12.42, "Sean Harmer" <sean.harmer at kdab.com> wrote:
>> >On Monday 18 March 2013 10:27:45 Shaw Andy wrote:
>> >> > Making of Qt 5.1 minor release will soon start:
>> >> > 
>> >> > - Plan is to move 'dev' into 'stable' branch on March 19th.
>> >> > 
>> >> > - After March 19th any changes that are required to get in for 5.1
>> >> > 
>> >> >   need to be pushed into 'stable' branch. So if your needed changes
>> >>
>> >>don't
>> >>
>> >> > make it today,
>> >> > 
>> >> >   please wait after the merge is done and re-target it.
>> >> > 
>> >> > - I haven't planed to create any branch yet for commits already in
>> >> > 'stable' and not in 'release'. So speak up if this is needed.
>> >> > 
>> >> > - If we decide to do 5.0.3, it could be done from the 'release'
>> >>
>> >>branch.
>> >>
>> >> Considering that people have been developing on stable on the basis
>> >>
>> >>that it
>> >>
>> >> is in fact 5.0.x, I think we should at least make sure that those
>> >>
>> >>changes
>> >>
>> >> end up somewhere in case we do a 5.0.3 release for whatever reason.
>> >>
>> >>Rather
>> >>
>> >> than lose those changes because we merged, could a read only branch
>>be
>> >> created from the current stable and then merge that into release
>>should
>> >>
>> >>a
>> >>
>> >> 5.0.3 release happen? So no more work would be done for 5.0.x unless
>>it
>> >>
>> >>is
>> >>
>> >> decided to make a 5.0.3 release.
>> >
>> >I agree. 5.0.3 may never happen but this is good practise and a
>>sensible
>> >precaution to take in case we do decide to release one.
>> 
>> It is not very likely that someone decides to stay with 5.0.x, so
>>whatever
>> we do should be such that encourages users to get to 5.1.x, thus we do
>>not
>> need 5.0.x to overlap with 5.1.x as we do with 4.8.x.
>> 
>> As you know 5.0.2 is in the works to be out soon and will introduce a
>> great number of fixes over 5.0.1. I hope they are enough to carry us to
>> 5.1.0.
>> 
>> I see three reasons for making 5.0.3:
>> 
>> -> A security issue mandating immediate fix release => that can and
>>should
>> be done on top of 5.0.2 with a minimal amount of fixes directly in the
>> release branch
>> -> A 'brown paper bag' issue in 5.0.2 mandating fix and making or 5.0.3
>>to
>> have something usable => that can and should be done in the release
>>branch
>> with very small amount of changes to 5.0.2
>> -> Severe problems in getting 5.1 out increasing the need of getting
>>5.0.3
>> => In this situation everyone doing releases is working with 5.1, so
>>even
>> if there is a need, we can not make 5.0.3 without causing even more
>> problems to 5.1 (please not that this is a theoretical situation, I do
>>not
>> expect any problems with 5.1)
>> 
>> Thus I think that it is enough to tag the stable branch before we merge
>> from dev. In case we ever need to get the situation before, it can be
>>done
>> easily.
>
>Since you list several reasons why we may well need a Qt 5.0.3, then why
>not 
>do it properly and just make a branch as Andy suggests? What is the
>downside?

If required, we can always create that branch later on (ie. branch from
the latest sha1 in stable before we merged dev back to stable). Is there a
real reason why we should do it now? I don't really see one.

Cheers,
Lars




More information about the Development mailing list