On 23.08.2013 17:33, Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Friday 23 August 2013 14:23:23 Antti Kaijanmäki wrote: >> On 23.08.2013 11:32, Olivier Goffart wrote: >>> Stable means it does not change much. >> >> I was very careful not to introduce any big changes. I'm only a default >> path and providing a fallback in the case that the normal loading from >> theme directories fails. I'm not touching the way theme directories are >> travelled or how the engine handles the search or matching of the found >> icons or the icon cache. > > First, I want to say that the patches are of great quality. They have good > tests. They indeed seem to fix what they claim to fix in a clean way, > consistent > with the rest of the code. Overall, they will be a great addition to Qt once > they will be in. Thank you for that.
Thanks! :) > But they are not fitting the criteria for the stable branch. Understood. >> I don't have any strong feelings about getting this to stable. dev is >> also fine, but I don't see a reason why this could not be included in >> stable. > > I hope I can make you understand better. Yes, you have. I will rebase on top of dev. I'm just not 100% certain how to do this properly.. Should I just branch dev, cherrypick the commits from my old branch and push to HEAD:refs/for/dev with the Change-Id's kept intact? Will this preserve the existing review history? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
