On 10/08/14 17:02, "Thiago Macieira" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote: >> >It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's >> >also how >> >we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the >> >procedure >> >without announcing ahead of time and letting people comment. >> >> I think I’m missing a mail here. But if this is about me asking for a >> different class name for QvolumeInfo, I don’t see this as an issue (see >> below). > >It's about integrating the class. When Marc asked for a freeze exception, >I >suggested and you agreed that we would have the weekend to work on this >and >that the 5.4 branch would be created on Monday. Just like it was done for >the >past 4 feature releases. > >Well, the branch was created on Saturday halfway through the day and the >"dev" >branch moved to 5.5 through administrative action. That's the first time >this >happens and there was no discussion or prior warning. Yeah, that caught me a bit by surprise as well. > >We lose 24 hours worth of integration+fix attempts and another 36 hours >due to >my unavailability in the new integration window. So other people please >take >care of reviewing and approving Ivan's changes in the next 48 hours. As said, I’m ok to commit it to the 5.4 branch during the next week. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
