[Development] [Releasing] brown paper bag issue in Qt 5.6.1 packages
Lars.Knoll at qt.io
Fri Jun 24 10:33:39 CEST 2016
On 24/06/16 09:41, "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 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?
>> > * 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 220.127.116.11, 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.
Yes, Linux packagers will call it 18.104.22.168, and I agree that’s what we should have called it as well.
I have nothing fundamental against changing the tag to 22.214.171.124, but I don’t see a huge gain neither. It’s just a tag in our repo’s.
>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.
True, but I don’t think it’ll be a problem in practice. Let’s however make sure we get this right next time.
>> 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
>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.
Well, I didn’t know 5.6.1 is gone. That’s clearly wrong.
More information about the Development