[Development] Qt6 repo

Volker Hilsheimer volker.hilsheimer at qt.io
Fri Jan 15 11:50:42 CET 2021

+1, thanks Eddy.


> On 15 Jan 2021, at 11:41, Nibedit Dey <nibedit.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> Thank you Edward for the proposal.
> It sounds good to me.
> Best Regards,
> Nibedit
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:17 PM Edward Welbourne <edward.welbourne at qt.io> wrote:
> Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> > Qt5 repo contains many branches and some have ambiguous names with
> > respect to the Qt version. e.g: It is not clear whether the dev branch
> > is applicable to Qt5 development or Qt6.
> That ambiguity, at least, would go away if the module were called qt.git
> instead of qt5.git; and we can easily do that, once we rename the old
> qt.git to qt4.git (long over-due anyway), without affecting significant
> numbers of people (Qt 4 is now history).
> > We will wait for the Qt maintainers to take a call on this topic and
> > let us know the decision.
> Well, this mailing list *is* where and how the Qt maintainers make such
> decisions, so let's have a concrete proposal (not new, just spelled out
> here for the sake of concreteness):
> * Rename the old qt.git to qt4.git
> * Change anything that previously referenced qt.git to point to qt4.git
> * Rename qt5.git to qt.git
> * Retain a qt5.git symlink to qt.git on our public servers, so that
>   those with checkouts using any of them as a remote (notably everyone's
>   gerrit remote set up by init-repository) don't suffer disruption
> * Change all instructions for how to work on Qt development to talk
>   about the qt.git repo
> The 5.* branches in qt.git will then obviously be the Qt 5 branches; the
> 6.* branches will equally obviously be the Qt 6 branches.  That dev is a
> future Qt 6 version shall be a reasonable guess, although eventually dev
> shall be the branch for Qt 7 development after we've released the last
> Qt 6 minor; but that won't make much difference to a contributor, in any
> case.  Once 7.* branches show up it'll be natural to suppose dev relates
> to them, in the same way.
> Then we have a simple qt.git as the super-repo for Qt, in all versions
> after Qt 4, alongside the repositories for all the sub-modules that get
> checked out under it, at least by the release team, notwithstanding that
> some developers may be doing other things that better suit their own
> workflows.
> At some point in the distant future, we'll be able to delete the qt5.git
> symlink, but we have no reason to to rush.
> If we are feeling really paranoid, we can split the first two steps up
> into
> * Move qt.git to qt4.git, put in place a qt.git symlink pointing to it,
> * Change all public mentions of qt.git to qt4.git
> * Wait a month, remove symlink, wait a month
> or insert some other time intervals in place of month, that suffice to
> give a decent chance that anyone affected will trip over the change and
> get their chance to catch up on what's happened, before qt.git changes
> its meaning entirely.  But I doubt we need to be this paranoid.
> All discussion of *what* resides in qt.git, including whether to break
> out the Coin provisioning stuff to another module, is separate from this
> so can be handled as a separate discussion (please change Subject).
>         Eddy.
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

More information about the Development mailing list