Choosing the qt tree to file merge requests

[Michael Jansen]

On Saturday 12 September 2009 17:12:14 you wrote:
> Em Sábado 12. Setembro 2009, às 16.56.13, Aaron J. Seigo escreveu:
> > On September 12, 2009, Christoph Feck wrote:
> > > On Saturday 12 September 2009 13:23:17 Tom Albers wrote:
> > > > Op Saturday 12 September 2009 03:15 schreef u:
> > > > > There's been some discussion about making KDE 4.4 depend on Qt 4.6,
> > > > > but I didn't see any consensus.
> > > >
> > > > There is imho consensus: we will depend on it.
> > >
> > > Not sure how upgrading Qt was handled before, but would it make sense
> > > to sync "qt-copy" with Qt 4.6 tp1 so that we can start giving feedback
> > > to Nokia? Maybe not requiring it right now, but some kind of "mass
> > > regression test".
> >
> > i would personally appreciate this. it will give us more time to get Qt
> > 4.6 testing done and we already have some patches waiting for Qt 4.6 to
> > land, at least one of which fixes a bug in trunk.
> >
> > > Running trunk with 4.6 right now (there are some post-4.6 tp1
> > > regressions in QtGui, but tp1 should work fine).
> >
> > i think it probably makes sense to keep kde-qt sync'd to tagged
> > milestones rather than track the day-to-day bleeding edge. people who
> > want that can get it easily enough. :)
> 
> Tag v4.6.0-tp1 pushed to kde-qt.git.
> 
> It's exactly the same as the one in qt.git, as was to be expected.
> 
> We won't need a branch until someone has patches to submit. At this point,
> patches should be submitted to qt.git and reviewed by trolls.
> 

Given the response time i experience there for pretty trivial fixes this is 
probably the correct way, but not a promising one.

Mike