[Development] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 09.05.2023

[Jani Heikkinen]

Qt 6.5 status

  *   Qt 6.5.1 content is not frozen yet
     *   the last changes are integrating.
     *   Target is to freeze the release content later this week
  *   Target is to release Qt 6.5.1 during next week

Qt 6.6 status

  *   Unfortunately no new snapshot available yet.
     *   No successfully submodule update available
     *   Target is to update existing one immediately after successfully submodule update
  *   NOTE: Please review new API as soon as you think you are done; do not wait for header review
     *   Focus on header review should be checking things for technical errors (like bc breakage),
discussion about API design and naming and such should be done much earlier.



Next meeting Tue 16th May 2023 16:00 CET



br,

Jani Heikkinen

Release Manager



irc log below:
[17:00:00] <+jaheikki3> ablasche: akseli: carewolf: frkleint: lars_: mapaaso: The-Compiler: thiago: vohi: ping
[17:00:09] <carewolf> poing
[17:01:13] <+jaheikki3> time to start qt release team meeting
[17:01:21] <+jaheikki3> on agenda today:
[17:01:25] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.5 status
[17:01:31] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.6 status
[17:01:43] <+jaheikki3> Any additional item to the agenda?
[17:03:03] <+jaheikki3> Let's start from Qt 6.5 status:
[17:03:23] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.5.1 content not frozen yet
[17:03:54] <+jaheikki3> But the last changes are integrating
[17:04:15] <+jaheikki3> target is to freeze the release content later this week
[17:04:35] <+jaheikki3> and the target is to release Qt 6.5.1 during next week
[17:05:03] <+jaheikki3> That's all about Qt 6.5 status at this time. Any comments or questions?
[17:05:26] <carewolf> sounds good
[17:06:18] <+jaheikki3> great, then Qt 6.6 status
[17:06:42] <+jaheikki3> Actually the status is pretty much the same as last week
[17:07:05] <+jaheikki3> Unfortunately no new snapshot available yet
[17:07:26] <+jaheikki3> because there isn't successfully submodule update available
[17:07:49] <+jaheikki3> All known issues should be fixed & round ongoing
[17:08:05] <+jaheikki3> But it will take a while; CI is under heavy load at the moment
[17:08:41] <+jaheikki3> But the target is to update the snapshot immediately after successfully dependency update round
[17:09:11] <+jaheikki3> That's actually all about qt 6.6 status at this time. Any comments or questions?
[17:09:49] <carewolf> any update on when we would do start API review for 6.6? There was talk about starting it earlier
[17:10:08] <+jaheikki3> vohi: any comments from your side for that?
[17:10:30] <vohi> I think we should not abuse the header review process for API review. If there's new API, review those as soon as you think you are done.
[17:11:25] <vohi> I liked what the build system team did a while ago with a public review of cmake APIs, inviting anyone to the meeting. Perhaps that doesn't always scale/make sense, but more of that wouldn't hurt
[17:11:38] <thiago> that's how it used to be
[17:11:47] <carewolf> the request was for the header review. Specifically from marc, who thought it got a bit stressy with 6.5
[17:11:48] <thiago> API review at feature freeze, header review after beta
[17:12:06] <thiago> for the past few releases, "header review" has been both
[17:12:44] <carewolf> right, so that is a problem with some teams not doing api review earlier then?
[17:13:16] <vohi> Yeah, it's natural that not everyone can be part of every code review, even if they would have something to contribute. And with a lot of template stuff landing in header files, the header review then also becomes an implementation review.
[17:14:08] <vohi> so, anyone that has something new where the discussion should be about API design and naming and such, please have an API review as soon as you can, without waiting for Jani to organize the header review, which then can hopefully focus on checking things for technical errors (like bc breakage)
[17:15:12] <+jaheikki3> Should we make that clearer for developers somehow?
[17:17:26] <+jaheikki3> meaning the difference between new API review and header review
[17:18:03] <vohi> yes, probably. We don't have great tools to let people outside the Qt Company invite to reviews, sadly, but as long as MS Teams is an acceptable tool to host the discussion, someone inside can just take care of the practicalities
[17:18:59] <vohi> and yes, we need to make it clearer that the header review is not supposed to be the first time an API should get reviewed and discussed by a wider audience (everything is obviously reviewed as part of code review)
[17:20:18] <+jaheikki3> vohi: would it be possible for you to send something about that to the development ml?
[17:20:53] <vohi> yeah, it's perhaps a conclusion to some of the respective email threads.
[17:21:07] <+jaheikki3> yeah
[17:21:55] <+jaheikki3> ok, I think it was all at this time. Let's end this meeting now and have new one tue 16th may at this same time
[17:22:05] <+jaheikki3> thanks for your participation, bye!
[17:22:44] <vohi> thanks!
[17:24:02] <thiago> bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20230510/373af29d/attachment-0001.htm>