On 09/06/2011 01:14 AM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday, 5 de September de 2011 21:32:15 [email protected] wrote: >> I don't really think the gap in features matters that much right now. We >> know that this change has to happen, and the earlier we do this the >> better. The reason is that it sets the direction for Qt 5 and gets >> everybody to work on the same stack. > > Those are good reasons. > >> So I don't think waiting longer will not help us in any way, but lead to >> split efforts on both branches, something that would in the end delay us >> on the way towards Qt 5. > > Are there people working on QtGui in the master branch? If so, that's the most > important argument for me. I see 82 commits there since July 1st, which is the > same number as QtCore. > >>> I'd say at least Windows support needs to be on a decent state before >>> merging >>> is allowed. >> >> I can't see what we could gain from waiting. Qt 5 is right now in heavy >> development, it's not something to use in production yet. The merge will >> help as more people will use the code base. > > I see that stabilisation would be gained. The more we allow of unstable code > in Qt 5, the harder it will be to get it to releasable state. Just remember > the state of the p4 main branches during 4.4 and 4.5 times, before the CI > gate.
I guess the question is what you're comparing to. The plan is to remove all non-lighthouse backends by Qt 5, and in that regard the refactor branch is mostly on par or better than the master branch (the master branch doesn't even have the windows plugin). However, if you compare the windows plugin in the refactor branch to the non-lighthouse windows backend in the master branch the latter is definitely more stable at the moment. -- Samuel _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
