On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 12:43:17PM +0100, Ahumada Sergio wrote: > On 12/03/2012 03:46 AM, Knoll Lars wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On domingo, 2 de dezembro de 2012 14.52.12, Knoll Lars wrote: > >>>> Most of the pending changes in master today are fixes that need to go > >>>> into > >>>> the 5.0 release, so the branch should be merged to stable, not dev. > >>> > >>> I have been seeing lots of pending changes in master that are 5.1 material > >>> and being held back. So this way seems to be the safer approach. > >>> > >>> Merging to stable has the disadvantage that we don't see what's going to > >>> be > >>> in 5.0, so I would prefer to rather make it explicit. Pushing changes to > >>> stable is not such a big problem. > >> > >> We can finish the 5.0 changes in master for a week, merge that to stable, > >> then > >> open it for the queued 5.1 changes and merge that. > > > > I'm a bit worried that this would make it harder to get the RC out of the > > door. > > > >> Note that most of the 5.1 changes have a "WIP" in their names and will > >> require > >> re-pushing to Gerrit for a new commit message. Isn't that prevented by > >> Gerrit? > > > > True, these need to be re-pushed to dev in any case. > > > > Cheers, > > Lars > > > > Hi, > > So as far as I understand, we should merge 'master' into 'dev' at some > point (twice a week?) and then delete the 'master' branch at some point. > This is mainly because we don't want to take non-blockers into 'stable'. > > For those who need something into 'stable' which is already merged in > 'master' I think that one solution could be to cherry-pick the specific > sha1 from 'master' into 'stable' and then push to 'refs/for/stable'. A > new CI run is needed though. > ARGH! this is exactly the reason why saying master == dev is just plain stupid. and no, there is no risk for the rc from merging master to stable - nobody greenlighted master for 5.1 development.
fwiw, if somebody wants to merge master => stable and there have been no commits on stable in the mean time, there are two options: make a forced merge (-no-ff), or just ask me to fast-forward the branch (i already did that for qtactiveqt. yeah, i'm so evil). _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
