[Development] [Releasing] Starting preparations for Qt 5.1

[Alan Alpert]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Knoll Lars <Lars.Knoll at digia.com> wrote:
> On 3/18/13 6:36 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>On segunda-feira, 18 de março de 2013 15.18.07, Knoll Lars wrote:
>>> We have said that we'll move to time based releases. Should we stop this
>>> because we aren't yet good enough in controlling our systems? I don't
>>> think so. It might feel unfair to some people, but we've had these
>>> discussions about some features missing the deadline every single minor
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Now if there are one or two features that are vital to make Qt 5.1
>>> possible, we can discuss exceptions for those. But then we need to make
>>> sure they go in in the next two days. Which features would these be?
>>
>>I know of only the QUrlPathInfo and the timezone features, plus minor API
>>changes, for QtCore. The former is something that had been lost in my
>>large
>>dashboard until last week, and John's changes were too big to review
>>while I
>>was at a conference.
>
> Yes. I doubt we'll get timezone done in time though, unless you're happy
> with the API as it is now.
>
> The file selectors would be very helpful for declarative. Getting it in is
> important, because I'd like to set the standard before everybody does his
> own. I think BlackBerry might also need it to move over to Qt 5 at some
> point

BlackBerry kind of "needs" it, in that if they don't have it then
they'll continue to do their own highly incompatible thing after
switching to Qt 5. Which is bad enough for everyone that we can say
it's needed.

My current concern with QFileSelectors is the discussion. There was a
discussion on the mailing list months ago where everyone involved came
to a rough consensus. Unfortunately it appears that not all interested
parties were involved in this discussion, so we get to go through it
again now in gerrit. In these circumstances, should the discussion
move back to the ML? Or do we move the conversation to the review
comments and assume interested parties are watching the change? In
either case, how can we give the discussion enough time when it sparks
back up right before merge?

--
Alan Alpert