> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io@qt-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Kofler
> Sent: maanantai 29. tammikuuta 2018 15.33
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those
On segunda-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2018 21:57:38 PST Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is not an either-or thing. Of course both having new feature releases
> and stable LTS are important. I am not claiming otherwise. My point is that
> there are more users for the LTS versions, thus I used the
Hi,
This is not an either-or thing. Of course both having new feature releases and
stable LTS are important. I am not claiming otherwise. My point is that there
are more users for the LTS versions, thus I used the expression. There are a
lot of users for both, we do not need to have a poll to
Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Users prefer LTS releases
According to what statistics? Also keep in mind that distributions will
download Qt once and redistribute it to thousands of users. And also that
there are 2 classes of Qt users: application developers and end users.
Such a bold claim really oug
Hi,
To comment a bit this discussion, I think that with Qt 5.10 as the first
release after the LTS it might be fine to stop after .1, but in general I would
not want to set such a rule. To me the question at hand is should we skip Qt
5.10.2 release if that means we can put more fixes into Qt 5
Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> Note that you can build newer QtWebEngine releases against LTS Qt
I know, and I am already doing this, but this does not help if there is no
newer QtWebEngine release to begin with! Even taking a snapshot is typically
not an option because security fixes are only back
On segunda-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2018 04:10:02 PST Adam Treat wrote:
> “stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not LTS.”
>
> +1
So long as we "stop after the .1"
Just look at how many distributions skipped 5.8 entirely because it didn't
have a .1. That was a huge mistake on ou
29.01.2018, 16:33, "Kevin Kofler" :
> Simon Hausmann wrote:
>> In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches
>> open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not
>> LTS.
>
> -1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS just does not fit togethe
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 02:32:58PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches
> > open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not
> > LTS.
>
> -1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:31:14 +0100
Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 29/01/18 07:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> > We have currently really many branches open:
> > - 5.6
> > - 5.9
> > - 5.10
> > - 5.10.1
> > - 5.11
> > - dev
> >
> > In my opinion this is too much to handle effectively, especially becaus
Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> I don't agree, 5.10 releases should be done on a regular basis until
> 5.11.1 is out (Yes, .1, many users don't upgrade to .0 versions...)
+1, I also agree with you and therefore disagree with the original proposal.
Especially security warrants always having one current
Simon Hausmann wrote:
> In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches
> open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not
> LTS.
-1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS just does not fit together with
fast-moving distributions, and we really
29.01.2018, 15:30, "Simon Hausmann" :
> Right, so one patch release per non-LTS minor release to fix bloopers :)
If there are bugs featured in "Known Issues" which can be fixed in reasonable
time
they could be merged directly to 5.x.1 branch after 1-week deadline as an
exception.
>
> Simon
>
Right, so one patch release per non-LTS minor release to fix bloopers :)
Simon
From: Konstantin Tokarev
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:27:49 PM
To: Simon Hausmann; Jani Heikkinen; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal ho
29.01.2018, 11:16, "Simon Hausmann" :
> Hi,
>
> I feel that we are generally guiding our users towards the LTS releases. The
> minor releases appear to address in particular users who need a particular
> feature before it hits the next LTS release.
>
> In the light of that, I think it would be
Hi,
As long as we don't have enough time fix all the problems in a non LTS
release, I think releasing at least one patch version is not that bad ...
Yours,
BogDan.
În ziua de luni, 29 ianuarie 2018, la 10:15:51 EET, Simon Hausmann a scris:
> Hi,
>
>
> I feel that we are generally guiding ou
“stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not LTS.”
+1
_
From: Simon Hausmann
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those
To: Jani Heikkinen ,
Hi,
I feel that we are generally g
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io@qt-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Giuseppe D'Angelo
> Sent: maanantai 29. tammikuuta 2018 11.31
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with t
On 29/01/18 07:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> We have currently really many branches open:
> - 5.6
> - 5.9
> - 5.10
> - 5.10.1
> - 5.11
> - dev
>
> In my opinion this is too much to handle effectively, especially because
> there is many branches in stable mode (see
> http://code.qt.io/cgit/meta/qui
> On 29 Jan 2018, at 10:00, Uwe Rathmann wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:59:06 +, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
>
>> - '5.6' will move in 'very strict' mode - '5.9' will move in 'strict'
>> mode.
>
> This type of discussion has to be lead, before making a LTS promise !
Of course. We had that dis
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:59:06 +, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> - '5.6' will move in 'very strict' mode - '5.9' will move in 'strict'
> mode.
This type of discussion has to be lead, before making a LTS promise !
Trying to change this later - without having any argument beside, that
maintaining stab
Hi,
I feel that we are generally guiding our users towards the LTS releases. The
minor releases appear to address in particular users who need a particular
feature before it hits the next LTS release.
In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches open
longer and s
On 29 January 2018 at 10:06, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
>> On 29 January 2018 at 08:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
>> > - '5.6' will move in 'very strict' mode
>> > - '5.9' will move in 'strict' mode. So no direct submissions anymore,
>> > just cherry picks from stable
>> > - '5.10' will be closed and Qt 5
> -Original Message-
> From: Ville Voutilainen [mailto:ville.voutilai...@gmail.com]
> Sent: maanantai 29. tammikuuta 2018 9.50
> To: Jani Heikkinen
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those
>
> On 29 January 2018 at 08:
24 matches
Mail list logo
