On Friday 23. August 2013 10.04.35 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > On Friday 23 August 2013 09:48:26 Simon Hausmann wrote: > > On Friday 23. August 2013 09.24.54 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > On Friday 23 August 2013 07:50:56 Olivier Goffart wrote: > > > > On Thursday 22 August 2013 22:18:54 Antti Kaijanmäki wrote: > > > > > On 22.08.2013 21:51, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > > > > On quinta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2013 21:26:15, Antti Kaijanmäki > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I have patches (linked in the bug) to amend this, and I would > > > > > >> like > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> get some feedback on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Antti > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can, please upload the patches to > > > > > > codereview.qt-project.org. > > > > > > It's > > > > > > easier to discuss them there. > > > > > > > > > > Either I was not clear enough or I have misunderstood something, but > > > > > the > > > > > links to the patches in codereview.qt-project.org are in that bug > > > > > report. > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch, I will have a look. > > > > However, the patches do not fix a regression, neither a P1 bug, so > > > > they > > > > should go to the 'dev' branch instead of the 'stable' branch. > > > > > > This is weird > > > > > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,63593 > > > approved by you is linked to a P3 > > > > > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,63496 > > > is also linked to a P3 > > > > > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,63535 > > > is also linked to a P3 > > > > > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,63413 > > > is linked to a P2 > > > > > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,63595 > > > is not linked to any bug > > > > > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,62408 > > > is also not linked to any bug > > > > > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,62948 > > > is linked to a bug without categorization > > > > Seriously? Three of those are documentation fixes (so P1 or not doesn't > > make sense). Incorrect device pixel ratio can cause severe misrendering > > on retina displays, so I'd say it's pretty easy to argue that it should > > be fixed in patch release. The second last is a build issue that Olivier > > had nothing to do with and that in Joerg's opinion was important enough > > to fix in the next patch release. The QString fix you could argue fixes > > data corruption. And I think similarly it's easy to talk about the pop-up > > location fix. > > > > Instead of trying to attack other changes or Olivier's judgement as > > approver, I think it would be much better to explain why it is important > > that the icon fixes should go into a patch release. > > Honestly, I don't have any stake at the icon fixes, I don't even know if > they are right, don't assume I'm here because of my @canonical.com address > i share with Antti.
Ok, I won't make that assumption :) > > Make a good case for > > the patch, respond with arguments. And if you don't succeed in convincing > > Olivier, then there are other approvers that might be willing to review > > this. (I can think of one off the top of my head) > > Please let's not resort to "stop attacking people" as a way to stop people > disagreeing. > > I'm just wondering why he writes "only P1 for stable" when it's clear this > rule is not being applied by just reading the first page of > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#q,status:open+project:qt/qtbase+branch:st > able,n,z > > I don't mind if he says "These are new features so they need to go into > dev", but I'm sorry "this is not a P1 so can't go into stable" does not > sound to me as a valid reason. > > To me something either it is a bug and has to be fixed ASAP or it is a > feature and can wait. Of course I'm new here so if we have a policy on why > we delay fixing bugs I'd be happy to be pointed to it. I think the main reason for being hesitant with fixing a certain bug in stable is the risk it introduces to cause other bigger behavioural changes or regressions themselves. It is indeed a question of severity, not every bug affects the same amount of users, not every bug causes the same amount of damage. In Qt we made that mistake a few times as well. Do you remember the numerous patch releases in the earlier Qt 4 days? Sometimes we were quite relaxed about putting bugfixes into a patch release just to find that it caused a regression itself and we needed another patch release as follow up to fix regressions in a patch release (urgh). That's one of the reasons I can think of why people tend to be a bit more hesitant and not put every bug fix straight into a patch release. Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development