[Development] [Releasing] brown paper bag issue in Qt 5.6.1 packages

[Sean Harmer]

On Friday 24 June 2016 00:41:25 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 24 de junho de 2016 06:49:56 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> > On 24/06/16 02:12, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
> > <development-bounces+lars.knoll=qt.io at qt-project.org on behalf of
> > 
> > thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
> > >On terça-feira, 21 de junho de 2016 23:37:57 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > >> On terça-feira, 21 de junho de 2016 16:42:14 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > >> > I propose that we delete the bad tag, retag and rerelease with a
> > >> > better
> > >> > name.
> > >> 
> > >> Also: update MODULE_VERSION qtdeclarative/.qmake.conf. It MUST be
> > >> different
> 
>  from the original 5.6.1 version.
> 
> > >What action is going to be taken to fix this mistake?
> > >
> > >Suggestion:
> > > * delete the v5.6.1-1 tag immediately
> > > * immediately retract all source and binary releases with "-1" in the
> > > name
> > > * modify qtdeclarative's .qmake.conf to say MODULE_VERSION = 5.6.2
> > > * tag that v5.6.2, update qt5.git and tag it v5.6.2
> > > * rebuild binaries
> > > * release them and source
> > >
> > >The tag v5.6.2 will be skipped in all the other modules. We update all of
> > >their MODULE_VERSION to 5.6.3.
> > 
> > What’s the point? Create ourselves man weeks worth of work and completely
> > confuse all our users for what exactly?
> 
> For two reasons:
> 
> 1) because every Linux packager will call it 5.6.1.1, not 5.6.1-1. The tag
> is *wrong*. Please delete the tag, regardless of whether new packages are
> created, recreate it with the *right* name.
> 
> 2) because the .qmake.conf file in qtdeclarative contains the same version
> number for two releases. It's impossible for regular people to tell us which
> version they have compiled if they have already erased the source tarballs.
> > Let’s have a discussion at QtCS how to best do things in the future, but
> > this is not worth it.
> 
> We already have a procedure for making a release and all we had to do was
> follow it. In any case, my problem was the release number, not the
> procedure. All I want is the proper number now.
> 
> At the very least, BRING BACK 5.6.1 to
> http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/5.6/
> 
> Don't EVER delete releases. That's poor release practice and poor open
> source practice. This is the same rule as "never silently replace release
> files".
> 
> I'm serious. Bring it back, now.

I agree. This really should have been 5.6.2. If this impacts on somebody's 
vacation then so be it. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices. It's the reality. 
This is why we have a process. How is this situation compatible with TQC's ISO 
9001 certification?!

Sean
-- 
Dr Sean Harmer | sean.harmer at kdab.com | Managing Director UK
KDAB (UK) Ltd, a KDAB Group company
Tel. +44 (0)1625 809908; Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
Mobile: +44 (0)7545 140604
KDAB - Qt Experts