On 12/16/11 8:48 PM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
>> One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to
>> be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Gerrit as a patch (in the likes
>> of what has been done to update
On Friday 16 December 2011 12:54:40 Shaw Andy wrote:
> On 12/16/11 1:18 PM, "Olivier Goffart" wrote:
> >On Friday 16 December 2011 12:48:32 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
> >> > One idea is to have an automated process that propose the
On 12/16/11 1:18 PM, "Olivier Goffart" wrote:
>On Friday 16 December 2011 12:48:32 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
>> > One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to
>> > be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Ge
On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 13.18.35, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Friday 16 December 2011 12:48:32 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
> > > One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to
> > > be merged from Qt 4.
On Friday 16 December 2011 12:48:32 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
> > One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to
> > be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Gerrit as a patch (in the likes
> > of what has been don
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:07:03AM +0100, ext Sergio Ahumada wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 10:31 PM, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> > Actually, when I read this a second time looking for something
> > relevant, I see the complete opposite:
> >
> > "11. Make sure you submit against the lowest applicable branc
On Friday, 16 de December de 2011 11.07.03, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
> One idea is to have an automated process that propose the changes to
> be merged from Qt 4.(x-1) to Qt 4.x in Gerrit as a patch (in the likes
> of what has been done to update the Qt5 sha1, e.g.
> http://codereview.qt-project.org/1
Hi,
On 12/15/2011 10:31 PM, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell
> wrote:
>>> Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt 4.8?
>>
>> I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
>> policy, it needs to
On Thursday 15 December 2011 22:31:32 Robin Burchell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell
wrote:
> >> Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt
> >> 4.8?>
> > I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
> > policy, i
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell wrote:
>> Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt 4.8?
>
> I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
> policy, it needs to be documented and communicated somewhere. You
> can't expect this i
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:53:12 sinan.tanil...@nokia.com wrote:
>> We hope to move Qt 4 to Gerrit soon. This should enable faster handling of
>> contributions.
>
> Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in
11 matches
Mail list logo
