 @mitya57 I'm thinking it would be a good idea to do a mass rename of the ubuntu* branches to follow the scheme of e.g. ubuntu/bionic instead of ubuntu+1 so we know what release it is specifically for. Objections to doing this?
[05:47] <Mirv> no particular historical reason. first there was a need for ubuntu branch, then there was a need to maintain both stable and next branches. the only reason might be not creating lots of branches over time.
 @tsimonq2, I don't mind, but it can cause minor troubles for people who already have the ‘ubuntu’ branch locally. Git does not allow for both ‘foo’ and ‘foo/bar’ branches to be present.
 Also for most modules the historical branches won’t be needed much because (a) we rarely do SRUs for modules other than qtbase and (b) we are usually in sync with Debian, this cycle is an exception.
 So an alternative approach may be using the master ‘ubuntu’ branch for the current development release and just pushing tags for SRUs if we do them.
 @Mirv, Ah OK.
 @mitya57, Can't we rename it to whatever release that's currently at then?
 Sure, migration for people who have it locally might be tedious.
 But who else has these branches cloned?
[12:20] <mitya57> Ok, I don’t mind, do whatever you prefer :)
 OK :)
 Qool
[12:35] <Mirv> I tended to do the (rare) SRU:s with dget / debuild / debdiff rather than using git
[12:35] <Mirv> after there was no longer a git branch following the specific release
[12:35] <Mirv> but anything is fine
 Right, OK
 I mean, it makes sense if we want to put a few fixes in one SRU or if we want to deliver a point release post-final beta freeze.
 And that reminds me, I need to have a discussion with the security team regarding QtWebEngine