Fredag 7. mars 2014 17.18.58 skrev Jan Kundrát:
> On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 20:12:57 CEST, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Also, I don't know of any project that has a CI-controlled integration.
>
> OpenStack. Full documentation on their setup (which, btw, tests each and
> every commit separately) i
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 20:12:57 CEST, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Also, I don't know of any project that has a CI-controlled integration.
OpenStack. Full documentation on their setup (which, btw, tests each and
every commit separately) is available at http://ci.openstack.org/ .
With kind rega
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Knoll Lars wrote:
> On 27/02/14 11:28, "Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote:
> >to sum up: we agree with lars' proposal, except on this point. lars,
> >feel like changing your mind?
>
> Ok, let’s try it and see what happens. We can always adjust as we go
> forward.
On 27/02/14 11:28, "Oswald Buddenhagen"
wrote:
>
>> > so to come back to the starting point: i think we should continue to
>> > target the release branch directly. the burden for the developers
>>isn't
>> > very big (actually, one can even argue that the burden being there is
>>a
>> > good thing
Hi Uwe,
Intention is that users could easier than before move to new minor releases.
With Qt 4.x it has sometimes been hard for users to migrate to newer ones. We
are still quite early with Qt 5 to know if this works.
I fully agree that we should do more patch releases than we have done so far
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:15:58PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 22:06:44, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > > A--B--C--D--E--F--> 5.3
> > > > \--C'--F' ^ shadow/v5.2
> > > > ^ v5.2
> > > [...]
>
> So let's agree not to implement this one?
>
ack
> > co
On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
>>> I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
>>> of purpose, not "master".
>>
>> i don't think the clarity buys us much. like the rest of the bra
[sorry for resending; I had a race condition between the left hand pressing
Ctrl+F1 to switch desktops and the right hand pressing Enter to add
newlines...]
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 22:06:44, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > > But I think you're suggesting something like this:
> > > >
> > > > A
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 22:06:44, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > > But I think you're suggesting something like this:
> > > >
> > > > A--B--C--D--> 5.3
> > > > \--E--F
> > >
> > > no, i'm suggesting this:
> > > A--B--C--D--E--F--> 5.3
> > > \--C'--F' ^ shadow/v5.2
> > >
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 15:50:39, Matthew Woehlke escreveu:
> On 2014-02-25 14:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Also, I don't know of any project that has a CI-controlled integration.
>
> What does that have to do with branch naming conventions?
>
> I'll grant that there is variance in the exact def
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 20:09:41, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > If it passes reliably within half an hour, no lockdown is necessary. The
> > > lockdown is only necessary today so the people doing the merging don't
> > > have to
On 2014-02-25 14:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Also, I don't know of any project that has a CI-controlled integration.
What does that have to do with branch naming conventions?
I'll grant that there is variance in the exact definition of "master".
Less so in the *existence* of the same.
--
Matt
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 20:09:41, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > If it passes reliably within half an hour, no lockdown is necessary. The
> > lockdown is only necessary today so the people doing the merging don't
> > have to tear their hair out to keep track of two moving targets.
>
> eh?
> the m
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 13:13:14, Matthew Woehlke escreveu:
> To add an outsider perspective here... it's bad enough Qt doesn't follow
> the conventions (a) used by (nearly) every other git repository in
> existence and (b) unambiguously recommended by git itself.
Are you referring to patches to th
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
> > > of purpose, not "master".
> >
> > otoh, the deviation from the default leads to *e
On 2014-02-25 12:40, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
>>> I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
>>> of purpose, not "master".
>>
>> i don't think the clarity buys us much. like the rest of the branch
>> namin
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
> > of purpose, not "master".
>
> i don't think the clarity buys us much. like the rest of the branch
> naming stuff, it is really a minor detail for the ave
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 08:02:17, Uwe Rathmann escreveu:
> last week we had the discussion about which version of Qt to use for a
> new project.
>
> What we have seen with Qt5 so far were 5.x.0 releases that were time -
> not quality - driven + only few maintenance releases ( 2 for 5.0, 1 for
> 5.1
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:22:49PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:11:47, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> > * We have one dev branch for all new development
>
> I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity of
> purpose, not "master".
>
i don't think
Mandag 24. februar 2014 14.22.49 skrev Thiago Macieira:
> Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:11:47, Knoll Lars escreveu:
I'll also only leave the relevant parts.
> > * After creating the branch for a new minor release we do a forward merge
> > from the previous branch before creating the alpha. The advant
ect: Re: [Development] Branches and time based releases
>
> Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:11:47, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> > * We have one dev branch for all new development
>
> I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity of
> purpose, not &q
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:11:47 +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> So to sum it up, I believe the release model we currently have works
> pretty well, certainly better than anything we have had in the past.
Maybe I'm allowed to throw in the point of view of a user:
last week we had the discussion about whi
Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:11:47, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> * We have one dev branch for all new development
I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity of
purpose, not "master".
> * We create one branch for each minor release. This branch can be created
> atomically f
Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:11:47, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> * Since the 5.x.y branches then only contain a very small (ideally 0) set
> of changes that have been cherry-picked from 5.x, we can safely close that
> branch after the release is out. Yes, this implies that there’s no
> fast-forward from one
Hi,
there’s been quite a bit of discussions on both topics lately. I’ll sum up
my thinking in a separate mail, as I think they are to some extent related.
Let’s start with our release cycle. In my opinion (and having seen 15
years of doing Qt releases), our time based releasing model works better
25 matches
Mail list logo
