[Releasing] State of Qt 5.0.0 wk 50 & Meeting minutes: release team meeting 12.12.2012
Sinan.Tanilkan at digia.com
Wed Dec 12 16:04:42 CET 2012
Thank you for the meeting today. Here are the minutes:
_RC 2 readiness_
There are still a few issues remaining in the latest packages. Fixes for all of these seems to be on it's way in, so let's see what the ci-system says. We hope that tomorrows packages are ready for becoming Qt 5 rc 2.
Topi (as the Error Manager) will follow the status of tomorrows packages, and if there are no blockers, he has the authority to make a go/no-go decision for the rc 2 release.
We hope to release Qt 5.0.0 next week.
Once rc 2 is out, Sergio will create release branches. If there are changes needed after rc 2, they need to go trough Sergio (who will cherry pick them from stable).
_Next release team meeting_
Next release team meeting will be on Monday 17.12.2012 at 16.00 CET.
Hanne will look after my responsibilities while I am away, and facilitate the release team meetings.
Sinan S. Tanilkan
on behalf of the Qt 5 releasing team
Irc log from the meeting:
[12:31:30] <SinanTanilkan_> lars, thiago, steveire, ZapB, rosch, mauricek, treinio, iieklund, akseli, joaijala, sahumada, tijensse, kkoehne: Ping
[12:31:36] <iieklund> pong
[12:31:36] <sahumada> pong
[12:31:38] <rosch> SinanTanilkan_: pong
[12:31:45] <steveire> opng
[12:31:46] <tijensse> pong
[12:31:49] <joaijala> SinanTanilkan: pong
[12:32:02] <kkoehne_> SinanTanilkan_: pong
[12:32:08] <mauricek> SinanTanilkan_: pong
[12:32:18] --> hanne (~linaae at 202.84-49-38.nextgentel.com) has joined #qt-releases
[12:32:18] <treinio> pong
[12:32:41] <hanne> pong
[12:32:43] <treinio> sroedal: yes, it belongs there
[12:33:06] <-- SinanTanilkan (~quassel at 202.84-49-38.nextgentel.com) has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
[12:33:15] <SinanTanilkan_> Sorry for not sending an agenda before the meeting. I propose it can look something like:
[12:33:17] <SinanTanilkan_> Pkg status
[12:33:17] <SinanTanilkan_> Bug status
[12:33:17] <SinanTanilkan_> QA
[12:33:17] <SinanTanilkan_> When ready/timeline
[12:33:17] <SinanTanilkan_> Branching
[12:33:17] <SinanTanilkan_> Next steps
[12:33:36] <SinanTanilkan_> Any comments to the agenda?
[12:34:24] <SinanTanilkan_> Let's start with the packages then.
[12:34:29] <iieklund> ok
[12:34:44] <iieklund> releases.qt-project.org/digia/5.0.0_rc2/backups/2012-12-12-379/ contains latest installers, based on qtsdk.git updated yesterday
[12:35:05] <iieklund> now there is a new build ongoing
[12:35:16] <SinanTanilkan_> My understanding is that we have bugs there that we consider important enough not to make this a candidate for rc, right?
[12:35:16] <iieklund> sergio updated qtsdk.git this morning
[12:35:32] <iieklund> right
[12:35:54] <lars> pong
[12:35:58] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok. So the first packages to consider for the rc, is most likely to be the one we will see tomorrow morning?
[12:36:06] <iieklund> correct
[12:36:17] <iieklund> the changes we want in should be in qtsdk.git around 20:00
[12:36:32] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok. Good.
[12:36:38] <iieklund> the nightly build starts around 21:00 finnish time
[12:36:42] <SinanTanilkan_> Thanks.
[12:36:56] <hanne> iieklund: guess sahumada has an earlier deadline for the changes
[12:37:05] <hanne> sahumada: ?
[12:37:18] <sahumada> that's 20:00 Oslo time
[12:37:26] <iieklund> no blockers in packaging to my knowledge (topi?)
[12:37:59] <treinio> iieklund: correct, no blockers for packaging
[12:38:00] <sahumada> hanne: the latest I have done is 19:00 oslo time .. so Gitorious gets updated without risks
[12:38:31] <hanne> sahumada: right - so our deadline should be 18.00 oslo time, i think
[12:38:33] <kkoehne_> I've to leave a bit earlier today, which means I can't update docs, examples injection packages after 16:00 finnish time
[12:38:54] <SinanTanilkan_> Looking at the bug list, do we think all fixes will have passed ci by 18?
[12:39:20] <tuukkat> Most likely no
[12:39:34] <tuukkat> CI run takes time too
[12:39:49] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok so tomorrow morning's packages are only a candicate for rc if we are really lucky.
[12:40:00] <tuukkat> Yes.
[12:40:11] <hanne> and fix quickly :)
[12:40:16] <SinanTanilkan_> So we should be prepared to start another round of pacakges in the morning?
[12:40:31] <iieklund> we can do that right in the morning
[12:40:40] <tuukkat> Most likely the Rc2 is the one build tomorrow morning. However it is good to have some items verified by nightly build packages too.
[12:41:02] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok.
[12:41:05] <tuukkat> Someone needs to update qtsdk.git tonight after all fixes are thorug ci
[12:41:14] <hanne> but by when will we have packages ready built + tested tomorrow then?
[12:41:18] <tuukkat> or really early in the morning, 0600 Oslo time
[12:41:35] <tuukkat> or even before
[12:41:38] <SinanTanilkan_> iieklund: Can you update qtsdk.git just before you make the packages?
[12:41:39] <iieklund> I should have possibility to arrive at office earlier tomorrow, so I can trigger new builds a bit earlier
[12:41:52] <iieklund> yes
[12:41:59] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok. Let's do that then.
[12:42:09] <tuukkat> What is the estimated time for you to arrive and how long is build time?
[12:42:39] <kkoehne_> I can update docs, examples injection packages not before 9:30 finnish time tomorrow morning.
[12:42:43] <iieklund> hmm, I can arrive 1h earlier i.e. 07 finnish time
[12:43:07] <tuukkat> So we have packages between 11-12 Oslo time?
[12:43:12] <iieklund> build time is equal to win build time which is ~7h in total
[12:43:17] <iieklund> jom is in use
[12:43:28] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok.
[12:43:32] <iieklund> that's rough estimate
[12:44:07] <SinanTanilkan_> Proposal for the next steps:
[12:44:17] <sahumada> which change is so important and that we are waiting for ? what if that change is in before 18:00 ?? what if that change is *not* in before tomorrow morning ?
[12:45:02] <SinanTanilkan_> sahumada: I think the issues on the metabug is our list.
[12:45:07] -*- hanne too is hoping we can use tomorrow morning's packages
[12:45:19] <sahumada> SinanTanilkan_: change in Gerrit .. I meant
[12:45:36] <lars> hanne: that pretty much requires that all changes are staged for the next CI round
[12:45:39] <ZapB> back - reading backlog
[12:45:46] <tuukkat> Ossi has some important ones in the works, and so do some others. Hopefully they are fast, but fixes are not yet staged for all items we like.
[12:46:30] <treinio> QTBUG-28517 has a fix in qtbase master only for some reason
[12:46:48] <treinio> will there be a merge from master to stable?
[12:46:55] <tuukkat> I think it is good to test tomorow mornings packages, but it seems that we need to build tonight.
[12:47:16] <tuukkat> Is it possible to start the build earlier than 7.00 finnish time?
[12:47:18] <hanne> ok, we can start building new packages tomorrow morning, but only if we know some important fixes are not in by deadline today
[12:47:26] <sahumada> treinio: ossi|tt re-pushed all the changes from master to either stable or dev
[12:47:39] <treinio> sahumada: ah, ok
[12:48:04] <hanne> we should really reevaluate the need this evening
[12:48:27] <hanne> when we know
[12:48:59] <hanne> to me getting up early in the morning would be a last resort ;)
[12:49:09] <SinanTanilkan_> hanne: I agree, I think we should be able to know today if all the needed changes are going to have passed ci by the morning or not.
[12:49:29] <SinanTanilkan_> And i think we need to agree on how we achieve that.
[12:49:34] <tuukkat> If someone can start the build tonight after the nighly build is finished, we have packages earlier
[12:49:53] <SinanTanilkan_> tuukkat: I agree. But we first need to know that the changes are in.
[12:49:58] <lars> treinio: ossi just did something about master. check with him, please
[12:50:08] <kkoehne_> Are there any changes that affect examples & docs that have to be picked up by the nighly build?
[12:51:22] <joaijala> tuukkat: earliest change to re run after the nightly build is around 0500..
[12:51:34] <tuukkat> Finnsh time?
[12:51:38] <joaijala> yes
[12:51:47] <hanne> kkoehne_: there are some changes to the licensing pages that would be nice to get in, but maybe not critical
[12:51:55] <tuukkat> That would be great.
[12:52:28] <tuukkat> hanne: docs are not critical for RC, if we can accept that docs will be updated for the final
[12:52:43] <hanne> tuukkat: true
[12:52:53] <joaijala> tuukkat: that is if there is somebody here to trigger the builds :)
[12:52:59] <hanne> kkoehne_: so answer should be no :)
[12:53:26] <lars> tuukkat: hanne: SinanTanilkan_: I can try to follow CI tonight (until midnight) and re-stage changes on the critical list if required.
[12:53:38] <kkoehne_> I'd just like to point out that getting the 'correct' examples and demos for the SHA in qtsdk.git requires someone updating the injection packages. So either we live with out-of-sync, maybe outdated examples, docs for the RC2, or we have to trigger the build in usual working hours.
[12:53:38] <tuukkat> joaijala: yes, I know. It is not a typical working time in our timezone.
[12:53:44] <lars> hope it won't be though... :)
[12:53:53] <joaijala> tuukkat: nope :)
[12:55:03] <hanne> tuukkat: i think the docs have to be in sync, and that requires a manual step, so middle of the night is probably not a good idea
[12:55:36] <SinanTanilkan_> kkoehne_: when does the doc&ex changes need to happen (during packaging)?
[12:55:57] <iieklund> it's in the qt5 build phase
[12:56:05] <iieklund> before packaging phase
[12:56:18] <kkoehne_> So before the 7hours windows stuff kicks in, I understood
[12:57:05] <iieklund> first the release build phase -> injection -> creator builds -> packaging
[12:57:18] <hanne> kkoehne_: can anyone else update the injection packages on behalf of you - a bit later after you leave today?
[12:58:02] <iieklund> everybody who has access to origin (packages will be stored there) and who knows how to prepare the doc&examples package
[12:58:22] <iieklund> releases.qt-project.org/prebuilt/examples_and_docs/
[12:58:25] <hanne> kkoehne_: you leave 15.00 CET right?
[12:58:40] <kkoehne_> iieklund: Alternatively we could update the qt5_essentials.7z, qt5_addons.7z once more manually, and just re-run the isntaller sdk ?
[12:58:55] <iieklund> that can be done as well
[12:59:03] <kkoehne_> hanne: I had planned to do so ...
[12:59:43] <kkoehne_> iieklund: Okay, so let's do this. I'll update the packages tomorrow morning from home, and you can then re-trigger the installer.
[13:00:01] <iieklund> sounds like a plan
[13:00:01] <andre_> when would the injection packages need to be ready? tomorrow 6:00 ?
[13:00:27] <hanne> kkoehne_: iieklund but what about the package building that is triggered this evening?
[13:00:37] <hanne> we need docs for those too
[13:01:41] <SinanTanilkan_> Is anyone going to test the packages that are being made for this evening (if there are new ones tomorrow morning)? If not, does it make sense to put effort into them?
[13:01:49] <hanne> kkoehne_: can you get someone else to stand in for you, so that we can get changes in and through CI until 18.00?
[13:01:53] <iieklund> hanne: well, the updated docs won't be there, the installers that are ready this morning are without the updated docs. -> if kai patches the bin packages manually in the morning -> I can retrigger packaging part -> new installers with updated docs&examples
[13:02:33] <kkoehne_> hanne: I can ask around. But I don't know who has access to origin.releases actually.
[13:02:36] <iieklund> "this morning" -> next morning
[13:03:09] -*- hanne thinks i am confused about which packages we are talking about. i was thinking about those that get triggered this evening normal time
[13:03:48] <kkoehne_> hanne: Question is : Do we care about the usual ones this night?
[13:03:52] -*- sahumada wonders why we dont just follow the normal procedure and test tomorrow morning packages
[13:04:06] <hanne> i agree with sahumada
[13:04:15] <joaijala> hanne: the build that starts this evening will be finished tomorrow morning
[13:04:28] <SinanTanilkan_> I would like to propose that we pause this discussion for a minute, and look at a prerequisite for it.
[13:04:31] <hanne> the ones we trigger in the middle of the night is only if absolutely needed - a backup plan
[13:05:08] <joaijala> hanne: if those don't have updated docs&examples, they can be updated manually, and then just rerun the installer creation, that will be done in about one hour
[13:05:25] <hanne> joaijala: ok - then i am in sync - thanks
[13:05:56] <SinanTanilkan_> We have a list of must have bugs, and we need to know whan all of them has passed ci.
[13:05:56] <treinio> lars: the fix is in stable as well https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,42524 , so we're good
[13:06:14] <SinanTanilkan_> Before all the must haves have passed ci, i don't think we need to make a lot of different packages.
[13:06:28] <SinanTanilkan_> That will only confuse us (as i think we have just seen).
[13:06:42] <iieklund> agree
[13:06:56] <SinanTanilkan_> So. How do we know when all the must haves have passed ci?
[13:07:10] <SinanTanilkan_> Once we have answered that, we can look at packaging again.
[13:07:12] <tuukkat> True. The only benefit in building often is to see that packaging works and the individual fixes work.
[13:07:21] <tuukkat> Let's go through the list one by one?
[13:07:35] <SinanTanilkan_> tuukkat: I'm afraid that's what we need to do.
[13:07:39] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_: agree. so we need to follow the changes
[13:07:41] <sahumada> that's what I asked .. we dont even know the changes that we need to ensure have passed the CI yet
[13:07:49] <SinanTanilkan_> treinio: Could you take us trough it=
[13:07:50] <SinanTanilkan_> ?
[13:08:24] <treinio> SinanTanilkan_: ok
[13:08:26] <SinanTanilkan_> treinio: Please help us focus on: 1. is it a must have, 2. when will it have passed ci, 3. how do we know that it has passed ci.
[13:09:16] <treinio> SinanTanilkan_: the list of must have's is https://bugreports.qt-project.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?requestId=13651
[13:10:00] <treinio> SinanTanilkan_: if there's a fix in gerrit, it is (should be) mentioned in the bug
[13:10:19] <sahumada> treinio: you still dont have the qdoc bug
[13:10:35] <treinio> SinanTanilkan_: once it's successfully past ci, it's status is 'merged'
[13:10:57] <treinio> sahumada: true, thanks for the reminder
[13:11:17] <iieklund> treinio: QTBUG-28496, based on the comments there the fix is in 'stable'
[13:11:42] <SinanTanilkan_> One question before we proceed.
[13:12:04] <SinanTanilkan_> merged = passed ci. How does iieklund know that everything that needs to be in is in?
[13:13:02] <lars> treinio: SinanTanilkan_: easiest is to collect the list of pending gerrit changes sonewhere. then it's simply about checking the status for each of them
[13:13:37] <treinio> SinanTanilkan_: yeah, it does involve some manual work - i can collect the list
[13:13:48] <SinanTanilkan_> treinio: Thanks
[13:14:01] <iieklund> treinio: and send it to me as well?
[13:14:08] <treinio> iieklund: yes
[13:14:13] <ossi|tt> lars: sahumada: treinio: the master branches of all relevant repos are no more. base and declarative had the remaining commits re-submitted according to intented target
[13:15:04] <sahumada> ossi|tt: should we just prevent people from staging (provided that we send an email to ML) ?
[13:15:27] <ossi|tt> sahumada: i blocked base and declarative explicitly
[13:15:32] <sahumada> kk
[13:15:43] <ossi|tt> sahumada: i don't know what will happen if you try to stage for a non-existing branch, anyway
[13:15:47] <steveire> iieklund: Do you have a gerrit account?
[13:15:56] <iieklund> steveire: yes
[13:15:59] <iieklund> iknd
[13:16:07] <treinio> iieklund: QTBUG-28496 is fixed (worked around, rather) and in stable, yes
[13:16:15] <steveire> iieklund: Then just add yourself as a reviewer to each of the changes. You will get notified when they are in and they appear on your dashboard
[13:16:33] <iieklund> steveire: ok
[13:17:25] <SinanTanilkan_> So when iieklund updates qtsdk.git and creates new packages (with the list from treinio), we will know that the packages have all the must haves. If we are very lucky, that happens tonight, if not it (hopefully) happens tomorrow morning. Agree?
[13:17:41] <sahumada> again .. that doesnt make sense .. because we need to know *before hand* the changes in Gerrit .. if we dont know the changes (or the changes are pushed to late) there is no way to add yourself as reviewer
[13:18:24] <andre_> a fix for QTBUG-28421 is also merged to stable
[13:18:33] <SinanTanilkan_> sahumada, treinio: Yes, but i'm hoping that in treinio's list we will also know which issues are not fixed by the end of the workday today, right?
[13:18:42] <hanne> sahumada: it makes sense if treinio makes a list of all the bugs + the changes we know of
[13:18:52] <SinanTanilkan_> sahumada: Shouldn't that solve it?
[13:18:57] <tuukkat> There ar 10 issues in the list of final release tasks. How many of these are not yet merged?
[13:19:10] <sahumada> then treinio needs to add iieklund as reviewer ..
[13:19:32] <hanne> sahumada: probably a good idea
[13:19:57] <iieklund> so treinio will put me as reviewer for the required changes?
[13:20:28] <tuukkat> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-28496 has comment that there is workaround, so can that actually now be dropped from 5.0.0 task list?
[13:21:24] <treinio> tuukkat: i'd like to verify that the workaround work first
[13:22:13] <treinio> iieklund: i can do that + email
[13:22:23] <iieklund> treinio: thanks
[13:22:35] <tuukkat> QTBUG-27415 has fixes with "review in progress" - both fixes seem to be approved, but not yet in
[13:23:17] <treinio> tuukkat: those two are the only ones i counted so far
[13:24:16] <SinanTanilkan_> tuukkat: I think treinio will make a list of the remaining items (with a link to the fixes in gerrit). I propose we look at that after this meeting (as we should have finished this meeting 30 min ago).
[13:24:21] <tuukkat> QTBUG-28389 - seems that fix is in, we need to verify when packages are availabe. So that seems to require no actions today.
[13:25:18] <SinanTanilkan_> iieklund: Could you please let us know when the new pacakges start (with the fixes in)?
[13:25:37] <SinanTanilkan_> I think that will be the packages we do sanity testing on, and consider as a candidate for the rc.
[13:25:39] <SinanTanilkan_> Agree?
[13:25:53] <tuukkat> QTBUG-28421 - Seems that this just got done.
[13:26:01] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_: yes, agree
[13:26:02] <iieklund> SinanTanilkan_: you mean the packages that I will trigger tomorrow morning?
[13:26:09] <SinanTanilkan_> iieklund: Yes.
[13:26:13] <iieklund> yes I will
[13:26:17] <SinanTanilkan_> Thanks.
[13:26:18] --> roquetto (~quassel at 184.108.40.206) has joined #qt-releases
[13:26:27] <SinanTanilkan_> So the next step after that is the go/no-go decision.
[13:26:39] <tuukkat> QTBUG-28192 - merged
[13:26:46] <hanne> iieklund, SinanTanilkan_ it could also be the packages that are triggered this evening - if all goes very well
[13:26:58] <SinanTanilkan_> hanne: Correct.
[13:27:45] <tuukkat> QTBUG-28336 - Does not seem to be fix and not in review yet (at least not commented in the bug)
[13:28:14] <tuukkat> QTBUG-28548- Does not seem to be fix and not in review yet (at least not commented in the bug)
[13:28:28] <SinanTanilkan_> As there is quite a lot of uncertainty on when the packages we will use for rc are ready, i would like to propose that treinio, follows the bugs that are found, and if all imporant issues are handled, that equals a go decision for rc 2. Ok, or do we need a separate go/no-go meeting?
[13:28:29] <treinio> tuukkat: that was fixed but reopened
[13:28:50] <tuukkat> QTBUG-28517 - Merged
[13:29:21] <tuukkat> So it seems that we have two bugs that are unknown, others are either merged or at least in review
[13:29:42] <SinanTanilkan_> Good. Thanks for the update.
[13:30:17] <SinanTanilkan_> Any objections to giving treinio go/no-go decision power for rc 2 tomorrow?
[13:30:33] <tuukkat> Can someone check from Ossi the status of QTBUG-28336 and QTBUG-28548? Then we know if fix is in time for the nightly build or later
[13:30:35] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_: if all P0 and P1 are fixed, we are ready for a "go" - so no objections
[13:30:42] <SinanTanilkan_> Good.
[13:31:10] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok, assuming we release rc 2 tomorrow morning, and there are no showstoppers in the days to follow.
[13:31:18] <SinanTanilkan_> When should we have the final?
[13:31:31] <sahumada> ossi|tt: ^
[13:32:03] <tuukkat> Those seem to be the critical items now (QTBUG-28336 and QTBUG-28548). When we know what is expected to happen to these, we can plan timing.
[13:32:32] <tuukkat> Final should be Tuesday 18th Dec, if RC2 is good.
[13:32:36] <SinanTanilkan_> On one side, earlier is better, because it gives us time to react if there are problems. On the other side, later is better, because it reduces the probability of problems (by giving the community more time to test).
[13:32:46] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_: i think we decided yesterday that best case we can have a final on wednesday then
[13:32:47] <SinanTanilkan_> tuukkat: I'm also leaning towards that.
[13:33:14] <SinanTanilkan_> hanne: Ok. If you have allready concluded that, then...
[13:33:16] <tuukkat> Tuesday is good for support, marketing, feedback in forums, etc
[13:33:30] <tuukkat> But Wednesday works as well.
[13:33:43] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_ tuukkat: what we said yesterday was that if RC goes out today, we could release on tuesday
[13:33:50] -*- anshaw prefers Tuesday or as early as possible on Wednesday
[13:33:58] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_ tuukkat : up now we are a day later
[13:33:58] <steveire> Do we know if any third parties have attempted to package an RC?
[13:34:14] <ZapB> steveire: we need to request feedback form them
[13:34:28] <ZapB> i.e. distros
[13:35:23] <SinanTanilkan_> ZapB: So the feedback we have asked for in the blogs and emails is not sufficient?
[13:36:11] <ZapB> SinanTanilkan_: i woudl suggets we try to touch base with Qt packagers for a few of the more popular distro's. Have we heard back from the blogs etc?
[13:37:46] <tuukkat> In any case 5.0.0 will not be perfoect, and very likely not a version many will go to production. We will have 5.0.1 coming in January etc. So it does not matter if we have not received all possible feedback yet. My expectation is that we mainly start receiving feedback when 5.0.0 is out, not before.
[13:38:21] <sroedal> tuukkat: treinio: this one should hopefully also get fixed for 5.0.0: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-28558
[13:38:29] <ZapB> also Qt 5.0.0 is in much beter shape than the 4.0.0 was ;)
[13:39:29] <SinanTanilkan_> :)
[13:39:35] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok. Last remaining topic is branching.
[13:39:38] <treinio> sroedal: ok, thanks!
[13:39:43] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_ , tuukkat anshaw : we might be able to release the final earlier than wednesday, but perhaps we need a new meeting to decide the schedule once the RC2 is out?
[13:40:12] <SinanTanilkan_> hanne: I propose we look at a release team meeting on the end of monday.
[13:40:12] <tuukkat> hanne: Yes.
[13:40:30] <anshaw> hopefully we would know by Monday when the final should be out
[13:40:44] <anshaw> I need to make sure everyone is prepared after all
[13:41:11] <SinanTanilkan_> hanne: Could you please facilitate a release team meeting on monday (i propose 16.00 cet, so thiago can join)?
[13:41:31] <hanne> SinanTanilkan_: yes - will do
[13:41:37] <tuukkat> anshaw: in similar fashion we need to have someone to look after the public forums, so need is very much aligned with support.
[13:43:19] <SinanTanilkan_> tuukkat: Is that something we should solve here, or is it handled somewhere else?
[13:43:44] <tuukkat> Branching: The plan is to branch to 5.0.0 release branch based on RC2
[13:44:02] <tuukkat> And then just pick fixes that are mandatory - like some doc fixes
[13:44:32] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok, so nobody except sahumada and maybe a few more, have access to add changes to the branch?
[13:45:23] <SinanTanilkan_> If there are no objections, i assume that is concluded then.
[13:45:35] <sahumada> what the procedure should look like ? do we just cherry-pick from 'stable' to 'release' ?
[13:45:35] <tuukkat> That would work. It might be good to have someone from docs area allowed as we expect docs changes
[13:45:47] <SinanTanilkan_> good idea.
[13:45:49] <SinanTanilkan_> sahumada: will you make the branches?
[13:45:55] <sahumada> SinanTanilkan_: I will
[13:45:57] <SinanTanilkan_> thanks
[13:46:02] <ZapB> sroedal: can https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,42569 be staged then?
[13:46:18] <SinanTanilkan_> Ok. That concludes all items i have on the list. Is there anything else that needs the release teams attention?
[13:46:35] <sroedal> ZapB: I just did, seems it failed
[13:46:46] <sroedal> git issue
[13:46:46] <ZapB> bah
[13:46:56] <SinanTanilkan_> If not this meeting is over.
[13:47:09] <SinanTanilkan_> Thanks for your time, and see you later.
[13:47:12] <tuukkat> bye
[13:47:17] <ZapB> see you guys
[13:47:40] <joaijala> bye
More information about the Releasing