Thiago Macieira [[email protected]] wrote: > Em qua 19 fev 2014, às 15:19:08, Frederik Gladhorn escreveu: > > 5. See Ossi's mail. It didn't work. Merging in branches in two directions > > with the amount of changes we have is just not very practical. We work > > around the problem with locking branches and doing fast forward merges from > > dev->stable for example, but this is a huge issue and would be improved by > > the branching system suggested. This is a real problem for the release team > > and whoever else gets involved. The good thing is that this is mostly > > people working at Digia and does not effect people contributing on their > > spare time. I could still imagine spending our (my) time in a more > > productive way. > > Which is also part of the issue: no one outside of Digia knows how difficult > this is, so no one can offer suggestions on improving the workflow or knows > what > to do or not do to keep the pain level low.
Ossi's proposal was aiming at reducing pain. We barely can release any version of Qt, let alone do that on a deterministic schedule in the current process. > [...] > In fact, why isn't anybody suggesting we de-modularise? Now that you mention it: <ossi> mail posted <andre_> nice one. <andre_> a follow up titled "Rethinking the modularization scheme" might be in order. You could cut&paste some text ;-| <ossi> nah, we'll address that with the CI improvements discussed before. that wouldn't have fully addressed the branching problem, hence the current proposal Andre' _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
