[Development] Branch for Qt 6

[Lars Knoll]

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen <kari.oikarinen at qt.io> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 15.1.2019 14.32, Lars Knoll wrote:
>>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø <Tor.arne.Vestbo at qt.io 
>>> <mailto:Tor.arne.Vestbo at qt.io>> wrote:
>>>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen <Allan.Jensen at qt.io 
>>>> <mailto:Allan.Jensen at qt.io>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
>>>>>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen <Allan.Jensen at qt.io 
>>>>>> <mailto:Allan.Jensen at qt.io>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:lars.knoll at qt.io>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea was to keep ‘dev’ for 5.x
>>>>>>>> development and ‘qt6’ for Qt 6 related development. At some point (when
>>>>>>>> 5.15 is branched) we’d basically rename qt6 to dev (because at that
>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>> there’s no 5.x anymore).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Okey, so we _will_ have parallel Qt 5 and Qt 6 feature development, and
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> that case need two “dev” branches.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I argue that instead of naming them ‘dev’ and ‘qt6’ like proposed, we
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> explicit names, either:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - 6.0 and 5.15 (if there’s no 6.1 branched 6.0 is “dev. If there’s no
>>>>>>> 5.16
>>>>>>> branched, 5.15 is “dev”)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I prefer the idea of keeping dev and make it head of 5.x that very clearly
>>>>>> 
>>>> indicates we want new feature development in 5.x not in qt6.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> At some point we _do_ want new feature development in Qt 6 (I presume). The
>>>>> names we choose now will stick, let’s be a bit proactive.
>>>> 
>>>> At that point qt6 will become dev, and later 6.0 and dev?
>>> 
>>> No, because Qt 5 will still have overlapping “dev” work according to Lars, so 
>>> we can’t rename it to ‘dev’.
>> 
>> We can (and should) rename it to dev once the last 5.x version (presumably 5.15) 
>> reaches feature freeze (ie. in a year from now).
> 
> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as we
> handle feature branches. The qt6/6/next/whatever branch would be for development
> that can't be put into dev yet as it is not suitable for the 5.x releases.
> Everything that is suitable for 5.x would still go to dev. Once the last minor
> version of the 5 series of releases freezes, dev is open for 6.x stuff. Then the
> qt6/6/next branch would be merged into dev and deleted.

Yes, that’s what it would be in practice.

Cheers,
Lars