On 18 February 2017 at 20:40, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
>
> Hindsight is 20/20. Let's not rehash coulda-woulda-shoulda.
>
> The question is only what to do now.
>
Oh, absolutely. I just thought it might help to understand a little more
how we got here.
__
On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 11:49:28 PST Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 18.02.2017, 22:13, "Thiago Macieira" :
> > On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 06:36:07 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote:
> >> Keeping 5.9.0 on schedule even while 5.8.0 blows past its planned
> >> release
> >> date would seem to b
On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 12:11:53 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 18 February 2017 at 19:13, Thiago Macieira
>
> wrote:
> > On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 06:36:07 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote:
> > > Keeping 5.9.0 on schedule even while 5.8.0 blows past its planned
> > > release
> > > date
On 18 February 2017 at 19:13, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 06:36:07 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote:
> > Keeping 5.9.0 on schedule even while 5.8.0 blows past its planned release
> > date would seem to be appropriate when you have the capability to
> > concurrently maintain
18.02.2017, 22:13, "Thiago Macieira" :
> On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 06:36:07 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote:
>> Keeping 5.9.0 on schedule even while 5.8.0 blows past its planned release
>> date would seem to be appropriate when you have the capability to
>> concurrently maintain two minor (no
On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 06:36:07 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote:
> Keeping 5.9.0 on schedule even while 5.8.0 blows past its planned release
> date would seem to be appropriate when you have the capability to
> concurrently maintain two minor (not patchlevel) release branches.
That's exactly w
The upcoming process changes are very welcome.
Regarding MSVC 2015/2017 ABI, I already opened QTCREATORBUG-17740.
At the risk of simply repeating what others have said, it feels
unsatisfying that a delay in the release of 5.8.0 should lead to a
shortening of the 5.9.0 release schedule, or that in
