On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:55:34PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen > <oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen > >> <oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com> wrote: > >> > i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to create > >> > the branch 4.7-digia > >> > >> why not just put it in 4.7, so they're one and the same, > >> > > because they *aren't* the same. the digia patches are not > > community-approved by the respective domain experts. the qt project > > cannot simply accept this, be if for trademark reasons. > > yup, and while that's a bad situation, if you leave them in a branch > instead of (somehow) encouraging them to merge backwards, you're only > going to encourage that split to stay that way. people (including > distros) will have no choice but to use the digia version. it's not > helping. > the thing is that 4.7 is closed as far as the qt project is concerned. we have cemented this decision (made by qt nokia RM) by creating facts - fixes are not being applied to 4.7 first, and given the strong forward-merge-only preference, this cannot be revised without creating ugliness.
fwiw, we'll probably need to re-define what the criteria for bugfix branches are if we don't want digia to have secondary branches all the time. "P0 and P1 bugs only" is simply no sane submit policy as far as anyone actually *using* our stuff is concerned. our pre-existing downstreams (i.e., linux distributors, but also maemo and symbian) have shown this rather conclusively. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development