On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 13.18.35, Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Friday 16 December 2011 12:48:32 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote: > > > One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to > > > be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Gerrit as a patch (in the likes > > > of what has been done to update the Qt5 sha1, e.g. > > > http://codereview.qt-project.org/11239), but at this stage is just an > > > idea. > > > > I still prefer merges, the Qt 4 way. This is something we'll need to > > figure > > out by the time we branch 5.0 from 5.1. > > The Qt 5.0 to Qt 5.1 merging system will need adaptation compared to the way > it worked in Qt 4 in order to work with gerrit. (the merge need to go > through the CI, and sometimes, commit in Qt 5.0 would break tests in Qt 5.1 > meaning they need followup commit.) In Qt 4 it worked because the CI > system was merging branches, and there was the qt-4.8-from-4.7 branch that > as merged by CI. But gerrit do not play well with branches (yet?).
Sounds like we need a thread on the post-feature-freeze branches...
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
