<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:SimSun;
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
        {font-family:SimSun;
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"\@SimSun";
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
        margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
        {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
        mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
        margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Meeting minutes from Qt 5.2.0 release team meeting 02.09.2013:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Qt 5.1.2 will not be released unless something really critical is found<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">               -This is to secure Qt5.2.0 schedule<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Qt 5.2.0 planned schedule<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Feature freeze on 20.9.2013<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Merge from dev to stable will happen immediately after feature freeze<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Alpha release (source packages) will be done almost immediately after feature freeze as well, at week 39<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Beta release (with binary installers etc) will be done 3 weeks after alpha, at week 42<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Release candidate will be done 4 weeks after beta, at week 46<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Final release will be done 2 weeks after RC, at week 48, which is last week of November<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Release plan will be available on Qt Project's wiki<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Qt 5.2 Tools & versions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">    - Target is to upgrade<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">               - MinGW version to 4.8.1<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">                              - both MinGW 4.8.0 & 4.8.1 needs to be shipped. More discussion coming in ML soon<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:36.0pt">- OpenSSL version to 1.0.1 (or newer)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">               - Qt Creator version to 3.0<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">                              - Beta, RC and Final aligned with Qt 5.2 releases<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Next meeting: 16.9.2013 16:00 CET<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">IRC log below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#AF7F00">(5:00:18 PM) </span>
<b><span style="color:#AF7F00">jaheikki3: </span></b>akseli: iieklund: kkoehne_: sahumada: thiago: fkleint: ZapB_: tronical: ramotyka_: wolfgang-b: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: ping<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:00:24 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>jaheikki3: pong<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#204A87">(5:00:32 PM) </span><b><span style="color:#204A87">akseli:
</span></b>jaheikki3: pong<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:00:44 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>jaheikki3: pong<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#6D131C">(5:00:56 PM) </span><span style="color:#6D131C">wolfgang-b:
</span>jaheikki3, pong<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:01:37 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>jaheikki3: pong<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4F7421">(5:01:52 PM) </span><span style="color:#4F7421">sahumada:
</span>jaheikki3: pong<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:02:06 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Time to start first Qt5.2 release team meeting, welcome all!<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:02:22 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>On agenda today:<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:02:33 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Qt5.2 planned schedule<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:02:41 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Qt5.2 tools & versions<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:02:49 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Next meeting<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:02:56 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Any additional items to agenda?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:04:18 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>What is the plan for 5.1.2?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:05:12 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>fkleint: Good, lets take it to the agenda as well<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:05:49 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>feel free to bring topics during meeting .. let's start from Qt5.2 planned schedule<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:06:06 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>As Lars already informed target is to get 5.2 out at the end of November<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:06:25 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>He informed also that feature freeze is 20.9.2013<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:06:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>This means we have 10 weeks to finalize Qt5.2<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:06:52 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>from feature freeze to final I mean<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:07:08 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>quite ambitious..when will the merge dev->stable happen?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:07:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>fkleint. Immediately after feature freeze<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:07:55 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>that means we release 5.1.2. before?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:08:22 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>fkleint: Do we plan for a 5.1.2? I thought not.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:08:35 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>fkleint: Well, we wouldn't like to do it...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:09:10 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>To secure 5.2 schedule it would be really good if we could avoid releasing qt5.1.2<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:09:24 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>We have a 5.1.2 fix version in Jira?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:09:36 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>and many bugs with fix version 5.1.2?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4F7421">(5:09:40 PM) </span><span style="color:#4F7421">sahumada:
</span>we also had 5.0.3 <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:09:43 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>hehe<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:09:44 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>fkleint: well, that's just in case, I guess.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:09:46 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>fkleint: Yes, we have<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:10:19 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>because it hasn't been decided if we will release 5.1.2 or not<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:10:39 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>But as I said it would be good if we don't need to do it<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:11:32 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>fex we have <a href="https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-33062">
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-33062</a><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:11:33 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Does someone know some reason why we have to release qt5.1.2?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:11:40 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>which I would like to see in a 5.1.2<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:11:45 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>a stupid crash<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:13:19 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>it is just P2 (at the moment). For me it doesn't seem critical enough for forcing us to do 5.1.2 release<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:13:57 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>I agree. There'll always be things already fixed in stable, but we really want to focus on keeping the 5.2 schedule.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:15:06 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>hm..the thing is, V4 might cause quite some surprises and it would be good to have a rock-solid 5.1.2<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:15:42 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>fkleint: Can you explain a bit more?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:16:01 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:16:08 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>fkleint: Then let's rather do a 5.2.1 soon afterwards, to fix any remaining 'suprises' :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:16:18 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>hm<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:16:25 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>I won't argue..<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:16:53 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>but like the 5.1 renderloop performance regression, V4 might have quite an imp[act on Qt Quick<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:18:33 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>fkleint: True. But doing a 5.1.2 would roughly require three weeks or so where we build 5.1.2 package + test etc. I'm just afraid that the 3 weeks will be missing for 5.2, which we really, really, don't want to do.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:18:49 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>I would like to make a decision that we won't do 5.1.2 if something really critical found. And if that kind of "blocker" found then we have to make it and that's it. But making it for sure... I don't like the idea.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:19:15 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: You mean we won't do 5.1.2 unless somethign really critical is found? :-D<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:19:28 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: +1<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:19:31 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>Hm..ok<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:19:50 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne: That was my proposal ;)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4F7421">(5:20:13 PM) </span><span style="color:#4F7421">sahumada:
</span>if something really critical is found .. we make 5.1.2 out of the release branch + the fix ?
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:21:04 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>or merge stable->release preemptively now?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:21:11 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>now that 5.1.1 is done?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:21:23 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>fkleint: What would that gain us?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:21:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>We would have it ready, then<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4F7421">(5:22:05 PM) </span><span style="color:#4F7421">sahumada:
</span>mmm<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:22:21 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>I'd say let's concentrate on 5.2 now, and think about how exactly 5.1.2 is done when we need it. It doesn't gain us much to prepare right now ...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4F7421">(5:22:26 PM) </span><span style="color:#4F7421">sahumada:
</span>fkleint: merging stable->release doesnt go through the CI .. so it doesnt take that much time to do it<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4F7421">(5:22:51 PM) </span><span style="color:#4F7421">sahumada:
</span>kkoehne_: +1<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:23:09 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne_: +1. If we need to do 5.1.2 we can then make the decision what is the content<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:23:14 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>Hm, ok, lets discuss 5.2 then<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:24:13 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>OK, We have made a plan how to proceed from feature freeze to final:<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:24:45 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>As said earlier, merge from dev to stable will happen immediately after feature freeze<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:24:58 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Alpha release will be done almost immediately after feature freeze as well, at week 39<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:25:17 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Just source packages, nothing else. Like in 5.1<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:25:46 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Beta release will be done 3 weeks after alpha, at week 42<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:26:06 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>That will contain binary installers etc, like 5.1<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:26:16 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Release candidate will be done 4 weeks after beta, at week 46<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:26:30 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>And final release will be done 2 weeks after RC, at week 48, which is last week of November<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:27:27 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Schedule is quite tight but we trust it is doable<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:28:01 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>But we need to be quite tight with feature freeze etc to secure that schedule<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:28:33 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Any comments?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:29:31 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: Maybe put the plan on the wiki? <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">(5:30:00 PM) </span><b>thiago [<i>~thiago@kde/thiago</i>] entered the room.</b><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">(5:30:05 PM) </span><b>anshaw left the room (quit: Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.).</b><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:30:24 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne_: that is under work. <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">(5:30:26 PM) </span><b>anshaw [<i>~quassel@201.255.34.95.customer.cdi.no</i>] entered the room.</b><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:30:48 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>I want to get your approval before publishing it<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:30:58 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Even Lars has already done it ;)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:32:17 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Ok, seems that this is ok for everyone...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:32:21 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: Good :) I think the plan is okay. It's ambitious, but I think we can make it.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:33:07 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>OK, let's then discuss about tools & versions for qt5.2<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:33:29 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>tool chain versions used, I'd like to have decision about them as early as possible<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:33:47 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>iikka_: Agree<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:33:48 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>meaning we don't change them anymore late in the process<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:34:17 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>And as Lars wrote, he will veto build system changes after branching into stable<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#4B7200">(5:34:25 PM) </span><span style="color:#4B7200">fkleint:
</span>hehe ;_)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:34:32 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: Well, I geuss that was more about qmake changes :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:34:37 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>mingw and openssl versions<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:34:57 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>for MinGW do we know any updates worth taking now?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:35:18 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: Well, people always want to have the latest & greatest, which translates to 4.8.1 at the moment :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:35:19 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>so we build packages with openssl 1.* , right?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:35:36 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>kkoehne_: ok :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:35:49 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>peter-h: yes, openssl was on my list as well<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:35:54 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>we are using openssl 1.* on CI machines, so would be good to use it for building packages as well...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:36:02 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>as far as I know the CI uses 1.0.0 ?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:36:03 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>iikka_: ok good...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:36:10 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>iikka_: yes, correct<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:36:27 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>peter-h: yes, we were planning to upgrade it in packaging as well<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:36:33 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>to match with CI<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:36:42 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>a problem with mac is they only ship openssl 0.9.*, so we would need to advise users to ship openssl along with apps, like on windows<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:36:46 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: when do you plan on having NPN done?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:36:50 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>iikka_: ah good<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:37:08 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>thiago: for my part it is already done, I am waiting for review :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:37:14 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: hmm... we need to update the OpenSSL search path then<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:37:20 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: The draw back is that MinGW-builds gcc 4.8.1 and 4.8.0 appear to be binary incompatible. So we'd have to ship them both, and somehow mark packages differently (since currently the 4.8.0 is just labeled 4.8)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:37:31 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: your code requires building with OpenSSL 1.1 or 1.2.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:37:40 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>that means upgrading the package builders<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:37:47 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>kkoehne_: hmm, ok<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:37:52 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>kkoehne_: what happened?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:37:54 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>thiago: 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 you mean?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:38:08 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: sorry, yes. Whichever version added the #defines.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:38:20 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>thiago: but yes, right, we would need 1.0.1 at least then...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:38:52 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: any chance of #ifndef #define in Qt the same methods?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:38:57 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: Some symbol's got removed ... moment ...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:39:01 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>or is that just a bad idea?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:39:21 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>thiago: actually I wonder whether we need NPN at all in 5.2, since it seems ambitious to get SPDY ready for 5.2...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:39:35 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: ok, let's just hold it off then<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:39:53 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: wait, don't websockets require them?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:39:54 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>thiago: but if we could build with 1.0.1 for packages, the problem would be solved, right?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:40:21 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>thiago: apparently not, since the websockets author had the patch ready before the NPN patch...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:40:28 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: ok<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:40:33 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>peter-h: let us continue in the review then<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:40:45 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>ok...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:40:48 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>if the CI system can be upgraded, it should be, regardless of NPN<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:41:00 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>but we'll offer a recommendation soon<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:41:02 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>iikka_: so openssl 1.0.1 would be preferrable for the packages, and CI...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:41:11 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>1.0.1 or later I mean<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:41:17 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>peter-h: ok<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:41:51 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>need to sync with CI guys about the openssl version tomorrow<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:42:12 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: I'll try it once more. Last time I had issues with _INterlockedCompareExchange symbol missing, but it looks like they fixed it in latest headers already.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:42:25 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>kkoehne_: symbol missing in the headers?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:42:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>OK, but decision is to use openSSL 1.0.1 or newer...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:42:42 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>kkoehne_: or symbol missing when running?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:43:01 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>jaheikki3: yes<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:43:20 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: missing when running. But as I said, I'll try once more :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:43:22 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>kkoehne_: this is really freaky. We don't use InterlockedCompareExchange. We use inline asm with GCC.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:43:35 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>kkoehne_: let's take this after the meeting or when you have it done.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:43:36 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: I think it was coming from ICU<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:44:15 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>do we build ICU or do we get it pre-built from icu-project.org?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:44:21 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: We build it ourselves.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:44:30 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>thiagO: we build it<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:44:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>then the problem is there<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:44:50 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>InterlockedCompareExchange is an MSVC intrinsic<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:44:55 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>it's not a function<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:45:14 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne_: If there is some problem with newest mingw can we decide to use same than in 5.1?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:45:25 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: There has been long discussions on the mingw-w64 mailing list about it ...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:45:51 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: Also, 5.1.1 already doesn't compile anymore with latest Mingw-w64 headers.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:46:20 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: Well, I think if we ship 4.8.0, 4.8.1 etc side by side, there is no problem.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:46:22 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>mingw 64bit?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:46:27 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Because if we need offer both 4.8 & 4.8.1 it is again some extra work for us...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:46:31 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: no, 32 bit.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:46:47 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>kkoehne_: ok<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:47:06 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: I agree that the name of the current package is then a bit misleading ...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:47:37 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>iikka_: Do you see any problem with this ?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:47:56 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3, iikka_, thiago: Alright, I'll sort out the compatibility issues, and write a mail about the choices we have on releasing@ tomorrow or so.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:48:07 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>well, if the 5.1.1 does not even compile with latest mingw version, yes it sounds a problem<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:48:19 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>ah, true ;)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:48:29 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: Well, fixes are already in stable :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:48:36 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>ah, ok :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:48:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: ... or rather, on it's way to stable.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:49:02 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>but let's try to have the mingw version sorted out asap, if we'll upgrade it into 5.2<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:49:13 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne_:OK. Let's decide that mingw issue later in ML <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:49:13 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: It's just that we might end up replacing 4.8.0 with 4.8.1, and qt 5.1.1 binaries will still run ... but you won't be able to compile them any more :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:49:35 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: Safest choice is therefore to ship both, or to stick to gcc 4.8.0 package.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:49:50 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: But people will complain then ...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:50:07 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>kkoehne_: I think we can not break 5.1.1 mingw builds<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:50:24 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>iikka_: I agree...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:50:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>if people update with online installer, they would not be able to build 5.1.x anymore with mingw<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:51:07 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: Yeah. That's another argument for shipping both toolchains.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">(5:51:22 PM) </span><b>anshaw left the room (quit: Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.).</b><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:51:31 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: Next topic? ;)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:51:43 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>;)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:51:48 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>did we mention creator version for 5.2?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">(5:51:49 PM) </span><b>anshaw [<i>~quassel@201.255.34.95.customer.cdi.no</i>] entered the room.</b><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:52:08 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: THat's simple. We need 3.0, and 3.0 will require 5.2.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:52:23 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Great, that was easy one ;)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:52:27 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>sounds risky<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:53:37 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>iikka_:Anything else?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:53:49 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>kkoehne_: at which point of time we should have the 3.0 ready? before beta?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:54:10 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>binary packages are released at beta<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:54:16 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>so, yes, it has to happen before beta<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:54:17 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>or not at all<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:54:18 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: We can't have it ready before 5.2 is ready. We have to march together, or fail together.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:54:46 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: we can't really release a creator 3.0 based on an unreleased 5.2. <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:54:58 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>iikka_: So beta, rc, final have to be aligned.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:55:14 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>ok<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">(5:55:40 PM) </span><b>anshaw left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer).</b><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(5:55:48 PM) </span><span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_:
</span>that's all from my side....<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:56:16 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Does someone else has someting on his mind?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:56:27 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>only that aligning is risky<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:56:30 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>do we have a Plan B?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:56:57 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne_:?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(5:57:05 PM) </span><span style="color:#052417">peter-h:
</span>I am working on a new network test server, but that is more a CI thing than release I guess...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:57:16 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago, jaheikki3: I don't see one. <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:57:42 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago, jaheikki3: But on the positive side, we've already released creator together with latest packages for every Qt 5 version.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#6D131C">(5:58:00 PM) </span><span style="color:#6D131C">wolfgang-b:
</span>jaheikki3, we are having problems with v4 related changes and I am not sure how fast we can resolve them. Currently, our qtdeclarative is not really usable.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:58:23 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago, jaheikki3: The difference is now that we'll leave Qt 4 behind also for the standalone packages, and will most likely require 5.2 fixes .<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">(5:58:50 PM) </span><b>hanne left the room (quit: Quit: hanne).</b><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(5:59:02 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>in the past, if creator slipped, we could always just release the previous version<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(5:59:38 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>wolfgang-b: Ok, sounds a risk for the schedule...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(5:59:58 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: Yes. But the Android support will require latest creator, and the QML language changes too ...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(6:00:09 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>what would happen if we released with 2.8?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(6:00:28 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>Android would suffer a little, people using QML would not get syntax highlighting for the latest features<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(6:00:31 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>correct?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#6D131C">(6:00:52 PM) </span><span style="color:#6D131C">wolfgang-b:
</span>jaheikki3, at least for BlackBerry10. I am confused that we are the only ones who are having problems<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(6:01:05 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: That's what I know, yes.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(6:01:33 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: Whether Android would suffer a little, or not work at all, I can't tell ...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(6:02:09 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago: But honestly speaking, Qt Creator is a very good track record of meeting deadlines, much more than Qt.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:02:13 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>woldgang-b: Hoping those can be solved soon...<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:02:34 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne_:+1, I don't see so big risk with that<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(6:02:49 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>fair enough<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:03:15 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>OK, maybe then last topic: Next meeting?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(6:03:19 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>let's proceed then. the risk is low and there is an alternative if all should fail.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:04:26 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>I think i would be good to have meeting before feature freeze, 16.9?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(6:05:05 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: Lars wrote 20th in his mail :)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#05353E">(6:05:40 PM) </span><span style="color:#05353E">thiago:
</span>16 is before 20 :-)<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(6:05:57 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>thiago, jaheikki3: Ah, sorry. was reading it the wrong way.<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:06:02 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>kakoehne: Right ;) <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:06:23 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>and that same time?<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(6:06:23 PM) </span><span style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_:
</span>jaheikki3: 16.9. is fine with me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(6:06:48 PM) </span>
<span style="color:#557C2A">iikka_: </span>ok for me as well<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:06:59 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Ok, let's have next meeting 16.9.2013 16:00 CET<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:07:28 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>That's all this time. Thank's for everyone!<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0D3A55">(6:07:32 PM) </span><span style="color:#0D3A55">jaheikki3:
</span>Bye<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="SV" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#557C2A">(6:07:37 PM)
</span><span lang="SV" style="color:#557C2A">iikka_: </span><span lang="SV">bye<br>
</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#052417">(6:07:39 PM) </span>
<span lang="SV" style="color:#052417">peter-h: </span><span lang="SV">bye<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="SV" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#6D131C">(6:08:18 PM)
</span><span lang="SV" style="color:#6D131C">wolfgang-b: </span><span lang="SV">bye<br>
</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#7C4C02">(6:08:22 PM) </span>
<span lang="SV" style="color:#7C4C02">kkoehne_: </span><span lang="SV">bye<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>