Choosing the qt tree to file merge requests

[Michael Jansen]

On Saturday 12 September 2009 18:17:38 you wrote:
> Em Sábado 12. Setembro 2009, às 18.10.51, Michael Jansen escreveu:
> > 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.
> 
> Better the correct but slow than the incorrect one.
> 
> We're doing what we can to expedite patches.
> 
> And know that trivial fixes are often the ones that break stuff. So, when
> submitting a patch to Qt, include a new unit test and make sure the rest of
> the testcase is passing.
> 

Anything else?

http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/merge_requests/693

Small commits. With unit tests. Second try. All in all about 4 month till this 
mini patch get's in. And it won't get much easier.

Sorry. As long as the patch list on gitorious looks like it currently does i 
think your plan to open up is a failure. You lost me and some others.

Mike