> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen <kari.oikari...@qt.io> wrote: > > > > On 15.1.2019 14.32, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø <tor.arne.ves...@qt.io >>> <mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: >>>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen <allan.jen...@qt.io >>>> <mailto:allan.jen...@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.jen...@qt.io >>>>>> <mailto:allan.jen...@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.kn...@qt.io >>>>>>>> <mailto:lars.kn...@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 _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
