On 11/25/2016 03:40 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
i'm expecting a flurry of retargeting requests of changes from 5.6 and
5.7 to 5.8 now.
I have a few changes targeting 5.6 which are waiting for review:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/q/owner:%22Alberto+Mardegan%22+branch:5.6+status:open,n,z
Il 25/11/2016 18:45, Oswald Buddenhagen ha scritto:
> as an immediate measure, you may step up and _commit to_ being the merge
> monkey (at least for the 5.6 -> 5.8 merges). if you do that quick enough
> (like, monday), we may reconsider.
Nice straw man in there. :P
I put "merge masters burden" i
On Friday 25 November 2016 13:40:15 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> hello,
>
> as discussed at the QtCS and these lists, forward-merging from the LTS
> branch 5.6 is becoming a significant burden.
> therefore, 5.6 is switching to a cherry-pick based model:
> - 5.6 is *NOT* going to be forward-merged a
The merging has become a huge burden on more than one person. Distributing it
over every developer has a couple of positive side effects:
* The code bases have deviated quite a bit in certain areas (c++11 usage,
configuration system, removal of WinCE to name just some examples) to make
merges d
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 09:11:13PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:41:42PM +0100, André Pönitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:09:30PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > > 1) The whole motivation for stop doing merges from 5.6 forward is the
> > > high number of
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:41:42PM +0100, André Pönitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:09:30PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > 1) The whole motivation for stop doing merges from 5.6 forward is the
> > high number of conflicts between the branches.
>
> That's not true, it's also about the t
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:09:30PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Il 25/11/2016 13:40, Oswald Buddenhagen ha scritto:
> > - 5.6 is *NOT* going to be forward-merged any more, *ever* (also not to
> > merge tags)
> > - you may integrate only changes which have been already integrated into
> > a
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:09:30PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> So, while on one hand this new branching scheme distributes the burden
> from the current merge masters onto the bigger community, in practice
> I'm very afraid (read: almost certain) that this will mean that very
> few people wil
Il 25/11/2016 13:40, Oswald Buddenhagen ha scritto:
> - 5.6 is *NOT* going to be forward-merged any more, *ever* (also not to
> merge tags)
> - you may integrate only changes which have been already integrated into
> a stable mainline
Sorry, but need to raise an objection against this strategy
hello,
as discussed at the QtCS and these lists, forward-merging from the LTS
branch 5.6 is becoming a significant burden.
therefore, 5.6 is switching to a cherry-pick based model:
- 5.6 is *NOT* going to be forward-merged any more, *ever* (also not to
merge tags)
- you may integrate only change
10 matches
Mail list logo
