[Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those
paolo.angelelli at qt.io
Mon Jan 29 14:41:53 CET 2018
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:31:14 +0100
Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com> wrote:
> On 29/01/18 07:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> > We have currently really many branches open:
> > - 5.6
> > - 5.9
> > - 5.10
> > - 5.10.1
> > - 5.11
> > - dev
> > In my opinion this is too much to handle effectively, especially because there is many branches in stable mode (see http://code.qt.io/cgit/meta/quips.git/tree/quip-0005.rst). Currently '5.6' is in 'strict' mode and '5.9', 5.10' & '5.11' are in stable... I think we need to change that to be able to work efficiently & get releases out.
> Could you please elaborate, what's the problem at the moment when you
> say that it's "too much" to handle? Is it a matter that branches have
> become different enough that merges don't apply any longer? Is it a
> matter of bandwidth for the releasing team having to produce releases
> from several branches?
> > So I am proposing following changes starting from 1st Feb 2018:
> > - '5.6' will move in 'very strict' mode
> Which by the way is already the case, in practice. E.g. there have been
> ~20-30 patches landing in qtbase/5.6, with over half being fixes for
> flaky autotests.
> > - '5.9' will move in 'strict' mode. So no direct submissions anymore, just cherry picks from stable
> This was also proposed a few days ago (to change in 'strict' mode after
> 5.11 branching is completed). I have mixed feelings about that, in the
> sense that in 6 months from now noone will be doing the cherry-picks
> because of the extra work, thus leaving bugs in 5.9 in the name of
> stability, but somehow breaks the LTS promise.
This will also introduce extra work in patching 5.9 (every change that has to go to 5.9 has to be pushed twice, due to no more forward merges)
> > - '5.10' will be closed and Qt 5.10.1 will be the final release from Qt 5.10 series (5.6 and 5.9 are LTS branches so we shouldn't keep Qt 5.10 active too long)
> I don't agree, 5.10 releases should be done on a regular basis until
> 5.11.1 is out (Yes, .1, many users don't upgrade to .0 versions...)
+1 here too
Closing 5.10 before 5.11 isn't even released, and actually after just 2 months of releasing, also doesn't seem good marketing material for the project..
> My 2 cents,
More information about the Development