[Development] v5.6.1-1 tag should have been v5.6.2

Alejandro Exojo suy at badopi.org
Sun Jun 26 23:20:41 CEST 2016

On Wednesday 22 June 2016 05:29:35 Simon Hausmann wrote:
> Approach 3: Include the one declarative fix in 5.6.1, create a new tag and
> rebuild declarative and all the modules that depend on it. That is the
> quickest way of getting the release into the hands of the users (qtbase was
> not rebuilt nor any other module not depending in declarative). We had
> binaries ready for testing in under 24 hours. Note: When I wrote "rebuilt"
> I mean re-compile and also re-run the auto-tests. With a big module like
> qtbase you this can take a few iterations. And once qtbase changes all
> depending modules undergo the same.

This just makes me wonder a bunch of things:

1. Why would it take several iterations to get qtbase working if it's the same 
code already released, and just the version number is bumped? If it's because 
the auto tests can fail from time to time, then I don't get it. The tests fail 
surprisingly often in my humble experience. Running them over and over till 
they succeed will not give you any assurance that the packages are good.

2. Why all this effort in keeping binary compatibility, and splitting sources 
and binaries if you can't release just qtdeclarative with a different version 
than the rest?

3. Why would the qtdeclarative-dependent packages even need to be recompiled? 
Isn't the binary compatibility enough?

4. Why if some of your tools can't cope with, assume that 5.6.1-1 will 
be fine for all the downstreams? The dash is used as the separator for the 
packager version it at least one important packaging format.

Alex (a.k.a. suy) | GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2
http://barnacity.net/ | http://disperso.net

More information about the Development mailing list