On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 09:24:47AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Em qui 20 fev 2014, às 11:25:33, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:05:15PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > Em qua 19 fev 2014, às 16:35:05, Ziller Eike escreveu: > > > > We have to “remember" that sha. A natural way to do that is to have it > > > > as > > > > HEAD of a 5.2 branch > > > > > > We have that. It's the old/5.2 branch. > > > > > > Right now, it doesn't exist because the release branch contains[*] it, for > > > the moment. > > > > > > [*] no, it doesn't. For qtbase, it should be > > > d7b0581c1c2ef60c08d238dae39298af6904918f. > > > > that's because the release downmerge happened days before the stable > > downmerge, and given that the downmerge was completed by CI at a more or > > less random moment, it isn't trivial to do it much better without > > potentially multiple manual fixups per repo. that's why i said > > maintaining the old/ branches is a hassle. the approach is Just Wrong. > > That's exactly what you proposed in this thread. I don't think creating the > old/5.x branches is a problem. They're not CI checked and we're talking about > creating a branch. > ehh, no. the problem with creating old/ branches is that one has to find the last sha1 before a downmerge. this would be a non-issue if created a new branch for every release instead of continuously recycling the same branches.
_______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
