On 19.12.2012 13.08, "Peter Hartmann" wrote:
>
>On 12/18/2012 10:06 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> (...)
>> oh. eh. this is somewhat more extreme than expected. in fact, your
>> branch is everything *but* a long-living branch - it's basically a
>> scratch branch which is recreated every few da
On 12/18/2012 10:06 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> (...)
> oh. eh. this is somewhat more extreme than expected. in fact, your
> branch is everything *but* a long-living branch - it's basically a
> scratch branch which is recreated every few days. the problem with
> rebasing is that you "detach" t
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> i'll leave it at noting that this is somewhat weird, and that "the
> project" may still decide that this doesn't belong into the upstream
> repo.
While it does sound a bit extreme, and I sort of pity the folks
working on that branch, I
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:54:37PM +0100, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> You are completely right about rebasing - that is exactly what we do
> currently: We rebase our internal branch on top of the upstream 4.8
> branch regularly (at least once a week). Where I don't follow you is why
> we would need
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:06 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> some months ago, I was confident that this would be something temporary;
> unfortunately, practice has shown that so far we always had a few
> commits (1-10) that we needed to "short-circuit" into our branch because
> some internal tea
On 12/18/2012 07:13 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:54:20PM +0100, Peter Hartmann wrote:
>> Thanks for setting up the branch; however, would it be possible to get a
>> 4.8-blackberry10 branch (without reference to the patch release number)?
>
>> We are not really releasin
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:54:20PM +0100, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> Thanks for setting up the branch; however, would it be possible to get a
> 4.8-blackberry10 branch (without reference to the patch release number)?
> We are not really releasing our own versions of 4.8.4, 4.8.5 etc., but
> have o
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>
>> On Monday 17 December 2012 14:55:51 Peter Hartmann wrote:
>>
>> > Alternatively I guess we could just clone the repo into a team clone.
>>
>> What is wrong with that option?
>>
>
> D
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Monday 17 December 2012 14:55:51 Peter Hartmann wrote:
>
> > Alternatively I guess we could just clone the repo into a team clone.
>
> What is wrong with that option?
>
Different workflow, less visibility from the Qt contributors and s
On Monday 17 December 2012 14:55:51 Peter Hartmann wrote:
> Alternatively I guess we could just clone the repo into a team clone.
What is wrong with that option?
Is it really important that everyone who wants to clone Qt 4 will also have
your branch?
Maybe separate clones are the way to go for
On 18.12.2012 17.06, "Peter Hartmann" wrote:
>On 12/18/2012 12:05 PM, Sean Harmer wrote:
>> (...)
>>> In case we decide to proceed with creation of a vendor branch, is it
>>> planned to be a temporary solution or something permanent?
>
>some months ago, I was confident that this would be somethi
On 12/18/2012 12:05 PM, Sean Harmer wrote:
> (...)
>> In case we decide to proceed with creation of a vendor branch, is it
>> planned to be a temporary solution or something permanent?
some months ago, I was confident that this would be something temporary;
unfortunately, practice has shown that
On 12/18/2012 12:26 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:00:25AM +, Vladimir Minenko wrote:
>> How do we proceed now? More comments? Some details for the expressed doubts?
>> Some actions?
>>
> i created the branch 4.8.4-bb10 (which is also the version number you
> should
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:00:25AM +, Vladimir Minenko wrote:
> How do we proceed now? More comments? Some details for the expressed doubts?
> Some actions?
>
i created the branch 4.8.4-bb10 (which is also the version number you
should announce your release as). members of the group "Blackber
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 11:00:56 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> On 18.12.2012 12.25, "Sean Harmer" wrote:
> >On Tuesday 18 December 2012 10:00:25 Vladimir Minenko wrote:
> >> > Sounds reasonable.
> >> > Laszlo
> >>
> >> Folks, how can we conclude on this?
> >>
> >> There were two votes "Sounds reas
On 18.12.2012 12.25, "Sean Harmer" wrote:
>On Tuesday 18 December 2012 10:00:25 Vladimir Minenko wrote:
>> > Sounds reasonable.
>> > Laszlo
>>
>> Folks, how can we conclude on this?
>>
>> There were two votes "Sounds reasonable", one comment with doubts from
>> Tuukka and one more "natural" fr
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 10:00:25 Vladimir Minenko wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable.
> > Laszlo
>
> Folks, how can we conclude on this?
>
> There were two votes "Sounds reasonable", one comment with doubts from
> Tuukka and one more "natural" from Sergio.
>
> How do we proceed now? More comments?
> Sounds reasonable.
> Laszlo
Folks, how can we conclude on this?
There were two votes "Sounds reasonable", one comment with doubts from Tuukka
and one more "natural" from Sergio.
How do we proceed now? More comments? Some details for the expressed doubts?
Some actions?
Thanks!
--
Vladimir
On segunda-feira, 17 de dezembro de 2012 14.08.07, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > would it be possible to get an own 4.8-blackberry10 branch on gitorious
> > in the qt repo (https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt), similar to the
> > 4.8.0-s
On 12/17/2012 03:24 PM, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> (...)
> We can discuss this, but personally I am not that fond of creating
> platform specific branches. I think the drawbacks of these clearly
> outweight the benefits in long run.
Could you please outline the drawbacks? In case you are thinking abo
>
> There may be several reasons, but I faced issues like getting "Do not
> submit" without a clear explanation (at least for me). Then I had to wait
> 1-2 days to get a clear explanation what could be improved. I can
> understand if such a thing gets blocker for someone.
>
> Whether or not it is a
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>
> On 17.12.2012 15.55, "Peter Hartmann" wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >would it be possible to get an own 4.8-blackberry10 branch on gitorious
> >in the qt repo (https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt), similar to the
> >4.8.0-symbian branch that still
On 12/17/2012 03:24 PM, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>
> On 17.12.2012 15.55, "Peter Hartmann" wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> would it be possible to get an own 4.8-blackberry10 branch on gitorious
>> in the qt repo (https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt), similar to the
>> 4.8.0-symbian branch that still exists?
Th
On 17.12.2012 15.55, "Peter Hartmann" wrote:
>Hello,
>
>would it be possible to get an own 4.8-blackberry10 branch on gitorious
>in the qt repo (https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt), similar to the
>4.8.0-symbian branch that still exists?
>
>The thing is for BlackBerry 10 we are working as close to u
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> would it be possible to get an own 4.8-blackberry10 branch on gitorious
> in the qt repo (https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt), similar to the
> 4.8.0-symbian branch that still exists?
>
> The thing is for BlackBerry 10 we are working
Hello,
would it be possible to get an own 4.8-blackberry10 branch on gitorious
in the qt repo (https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt), similar to the
4.8.0-symbian branch that still exists?
The thing is for BlackBerry 10 we are working as close to upstream (i.e.
4.8 branch) as possible, but due to so
26 matches
Mail list logo
