On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:27 PM, Simon Hausmann wrote: > How do you define "stable"?
I appreciate the value of CI, including the value of CI against the entire set of modules, not just the modules in isolation. At the same time, another important measure of stability is "burn-in", i.e., getting time running something and gaining confidence it won't break. Under a broad set of use-cases, not just what is covered by CI. The commits to 5.8, without the addition of new features, give a sense of burned-in stability. I don't have that confidence in 5.9, particularly when it is in beta status. On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:43 PM, Robin Burchell wrote: > We have three targets: dev, the stable branch (more or less 5.9, since 5.8.1 > is DOA) and the LTS (5.6). Adding an additional > "level" there as you seem to be proposing with a "more-stable-than-stable" > would be something I would consider new. Well said, thanks. I guess it boils down to whether you think 5.9 is stable or not. I guess you can tell how I feel about it ;-) I still see value in being able to push/pull a fix without having to pull in the new 5.9 features with it. For the people on this ML. Regards, Brett -----Original Message----- From: Development [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robin Burchell Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17 On Tue, Apr 11, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:14 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote: > > I think that what you are asking for is reasonable. I think the set of > > sha1s of qt5.git satisfy that requirement to the best of the project's > > ability. > > In this case I think they do not, based on all of the commits to the > 5.8 branches that aren't included in the v5.8.0 tag (last available). > If those were to be included in a 5.8.1 release, I would agree with you. qt5's 5.9 branch will contain a known-good configuration that built and passed tests for everything in it that the 5.9 branch of each individual repository won't offer you. I think you misunderstood this - I think that Simon was saying that the branches (not the tags) of qt5.git should be considered to be fairly stable for the people working on Qt itself (although obviously, qt5/dev will be more bleeding-edge than qt5/<x>). > > For users of the product we can only point to tags. For developers > > all active branches should be good enough. I find it hard to imagine > > introducing a third "level" that is good enough for "some" but clearly not > > all. Unless there is a consensus to define and introduce this new way of > > identifying a development branch. > > Right, but doesn't that imply keeping 5.8 active until 5.9 is at least > as stable? How is it "a new way"? We have three targets: dev, the stable branch (more or less 5.9, since 5.8.1 is DOA) and the LTS (5.6). Adding an additional "level" there as you seem to be proposing with a "more-stable-than-stable" would be something I would consider new. -- Robin Burchell [email protected] _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
