Hi,
I think the goal should be to improve the quality of changes that go into 5.6. I don't think that we should try to reduce the amount per-se. How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6? Other than that: Is there any concrete evidence about changes that did go into 5.6 that shouldn't? "really minor P3" is a little vague here. The person best qualified to decide how minor or major a change is is the corresponding module maintainer, not necessarily the release team. Simon ________________________________ From: Development <[email protected]> on behalf of Tuukka Turunen <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:16:30 PM To: Jani Heikkinen; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] Staging in '5.6' +1 From: Development <[email protected]> on behalf of Jani Heikkinen <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 11.14 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [Development] Staging in '5.6' Hi all, After Qt 5.6.3 release, staging has been restricted in ‘5.6’ and I have monitored some of the changes trying to come in. I have noticed people sometimes trying to put some really minor P3 etc fixes in ‘5.6’ even those really shouldn’t be put in there. With ‘5.6’ we are already in ‘strict’ mode so there shouldn’t be that much changes taken in ( see http://code.qt.io/cgit/meta/quips.git/tree/quip-0005.txt ) Ossi opened staging for everyone but I propose we should restrict staging for release team only. That way we could better monitor changes coming into ‘5.6’ and owners must explain really well why every change is really needed in ‘5.6’ series. That will decrease changes in ‘5.6’ and so on decrease the risk of new regression. And this all would be good preparations for moving to very strict mode which should happen March 2018. br, Jani
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
