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

Sean Harmer sean.harmer at kdab.com
Mon Jun 27 10:45:59 CEST 2016


On Monday 27 June 2016 07:18:02 Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Development [mailto:development-
> > bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt.io at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Sean Harmer
> > Sent: perjantaina 24. kesäkuuta 2016 11.23
> > To: development at qt-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [Development] [Releasing] brown paper bag issue in Qt 5.6.1
> > packages
> > 
> > -- clip --- 
> > This is why we have a process. How is this situation compatible with TQC's
> > ISO
 9001 certification?!
> > 
> 
> 
> Hi Sean,
> 
> Making a fix release fits well with the release process of the ISO 9001
> certification, no problems there. 

ISO 9001 is about following the processes that you say you follow. This is 
clearly not the case here as a process was made up on the spot to do it 
quickly. This is clearly a non-conformance. Removing packages is clearly 
another.

I'm not disputing that a process for quick fix releases should be made, but the 
time to do this is not when there is a sudden need for it. That's when 
unforeseen mistakes slip through the cracks.

Had the decision to just cherry pick this one fix and apply the usual release 
process for a 5.6.2 had been made, the level of testing could have been 
reduced accordingly to speed up the process and a message put out saying to 
avoid 5.6.1 if you are using QML/Quick. With a 5.6.2 release coming shortly, 
users could have made the informed decision to stick with 5.6.0 until 5.6.2 
was ready. If the installer had the ability to downgrade as well as upgrade, 
this would be even easier.

Cheers,

Sean
 
> In general, it is valuable to be able to make releases quickly to fix e.g. a
> security vulnerability. The fastest way to do it is to push the needed
> change (or changes) into the release branch, and create new release
> directly from there. I do not have any strong opinion if the number of the
> release should be x.y.z.1 , x.y.z-1 or even x.y.(z+1). Earlier the notation
> has been -1, but if there is desire to change it going forward, I do not
> think that is a problem.
 
> Yours,
> 
> 	Tuukka 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Development mailing list
> > Development at qt-project.org
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
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



More information about the Development mailing list