[Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process
Simon.Hausmann at qt.io
Fri Dec 23 18:01:30 CET 2016
Ahhh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your email. Yes, you're right, in that case the branch makes no difference and beta is a better name.
From: Development <development-bounces+simon.hausmann=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 4:42:12 PM
To: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process
Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 13:27:30 BRST, Simon Hausmann
> I find that the branch is relevant in this context, as it relates to the
> amount of patches going in. The amount of patches going in is IMO related
> to the probably of introducing regressions. The process around the release
> branch, as opposed to the "minor branch", as proven to be a useful
> mechanism for reducing the churn and making people ask themselves: Do I
> really want this change in this release or can it wait?
> So from what I think is one metric of quality (not the only one of course),
> the naming of release candidate is more meaningful.
How about this, then? We release beta2 from the 5.n branch right before the
5.n.0 branch is created (or finally branches off). It accomplishes the same
thing that Tuukka wanted: a release containing the code that is in the 5.n.0
branch at the moment it is created, not a few weeks after with some round of
And I really mean "the code that is in the 5.n.0 branch". Since the two
branches at the same at that point, it's only a semantic difference which one
we created the beta2 release from.
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development