[Development] [HEADS-UP] Updates to branching scheme

[André Pönitz]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 09:11:13PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:41:42PM +0100, André Pönitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:09:30PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > > 1) The whole motivation for stop doing merges from 5.6 forward is the
> > > high number of conflicts between the branches.
> > 
> > That's not true, it's also about the time it takes for a patch to
> > trickle down from 5.6 to dev to enable dependent work there.
> > 
> that only makes sense when you add the word "integrating" here.
> because nothing is stopping you from having said changes cherry-picked
> locally. 

Yes, integrations. but that's what matters. Not many people will seriously
review patches that require more than a trivial amount of patches in other
branches. I even doubt that most people have builds of all active
configurations around, not to mention something else than the standard
configuration.

> this even extends to whole teams, if the involved people are
> capable of using git beyond the three basic commands.

That's already a lots of assumptions...

> > > This makes using a LTS quite less attractive to me.
> > 
> > Using with what hat on? People with a "end user programmer hat" want
> > something stable there, no new features.
> 
> who's talking about features?  and if you don't want _any_ changes,
> then you obviosly don't need to update.
> 
> > People with a "Qt developer hat" do not want to wait weeks for
> > dependendecies to trickle down.
> > 
> only those who appear to be constantly chased by the devil himself.

Also the ones that would be completely fine with doing their work in dev,
but are kindly asked to use the "right" branch, where "right" tends to
depend on the person of the reviewer and circumstances unrelated to the
patch.

> i have no problem whatsoever to do followup work while earlier changes
> wait for integration.

I know.

Andre'