[Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Robin Burchell robin.burchell at crimson.no
Tue Apr 11 18:43:28 CEST 2017

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:14 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > I think that what you are asking for is reasonable. I think the set of sha1s of qt5.git satisfy that requirement to the best of the project's ability.
> In this case I think they do not, based on all of the commits to the 5.8
> branches that aren't included in the v5.8.0 tag (last available).  If
> those were to be included in a 5.8.1 release, I would agree with you.

qt5's 5.9 branch will contain a known-good configuration that built and
passed tests for everything in it that the 5.9 branch of each individual
repository won't offer you. I think you misunderstood this - I think
that Simon was saying that the branches (not the tags) of qt5.git should
be considered to be fairly stable for the people working on Qt itself
(although obviously, qt5/dev will be more bleeding-edge than qt5/<x>).

> > For users of the product we can only point to tags. For developers all active branches should be good enough. I 
> > find it hard to imagine introducing a third "level" that is good enough for "some" but clearly not all. Unless there
> > is a consensus to define and introduce this new way of identifying a development branch.
> Right, but doesn't that imply keeping 5.8 active until 5.9 is at least as
> stable?  How is it "a new way"?

We have three targets: dev, the stable branch (more or less 5.9, since
5.8.1 is DOA) and the LTS (5.6). Adding an additional "level" there as
you seem to be proposing with a "more-stable-than-stable" would be
something I would consider new.

  Robin Burchell
  robin at crimson.no

More information about the Development mailing list