[Releasing] rethinking the branching scheme

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Mon Feb 24 16:15:31 CET 2014

Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 08:30:24, Ziller Eike escreveu:
> > I think it's important that we put that in the mandatory task list, as it 
> > guarantees that moving from 5.x to 5.y is a direct fast-forward too and
> > all  fixes are present.
> I disagree that it must be a prerequisite for branching. Of course whatever

I didn't mean it's a prerequisite for branching. I meant that it's a 
prerequisite for releasing the alpha. So the merging is still required in any 
case, but we just shifted the requirement forward in time.

Now, I prefer it where it is because it means there's no way to skip it. 
There's no temptation to say "it's too broken, we're going to release the 
alpha anyway" or further delays in the alpha release due to merging failing.

> is released must contain all fixes, but that is independent of the action
> of “creating a branch for the version after the next”. Which I think the
> branching (or the dev > stable merge) is effectively about:
> We want to stabilize whatever is in dev, and we want a branch that can be
> used for feature development for the version after that. The process of
> making sure that the stabilizing Qt version contains everything that is
> needed for releasing it, is actually independent from “creating a branch
> for continued feature development”.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the Releasing mailing list