Lars Knoll wrote: > In general I like the model. As Thiago said it's pretty close to what we've > been > discussing internally before we started Qt 5 development. > > I agree that we should kickstart the model after the beta release. Branch > names should be more concrete and for outsiders to understand, so I'm with > Alan to give then easy to understand names. My proposal would be master, > beta and stable.
The proposed model fits very well for QtCommercial also - so I do support it. And yes, less metaphorical branch names, please. > * A new patch level release is released from stable when we see a need. I > don't think a strict 2 month policy will work here, esp. when we e.g. have a > security advisory we need to release a fix for. My only concern was also related to fixed 2 months release cycle for patch releases and here I would support Thiago's and Lars comments where release team has a bit more freedom and can start the release process sooner if needed. Br, -- Janne Anttila Architect, Qt Commercial R&D Digia Plc Elektronikkatie 10, FI - 90590 Oulu E-mail: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
