[Releasing] Meeting minutes: release team meeting 21.11.2012

Tanilkan Sinan Sinan.Tanilkan at digia.com
Thu Nov 22 11:53:16 CET 2012


_Qt 5 release time and process_
The release team is positive to releasing Qt 5 in 2012, if all important issues are handled.

We agreed to plan 48 hours from a package is made available for testing until the release, but the release team can shorten/or prolong this time if there is a need for that.

_Tracking bugs_
Bugs that must happen for Qt 5 (RC and final), will be tracked by using: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27426

Known issues for the RC will be published at: http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt500RC1KnownIssues


Irc log from the meeting:
[15:59:56] <SinanTanilkan> lars, thiago, steveire, ZapB, rosch, mauricek, treinio, iieklund, akseli, joaijala, sahumada, tijensse, kkoehne: Ping
[16:00:01] <sahumada> pong
[16:00:06] <iieklund> pong
[16:00:10] <treinio> pong
[16:00:11] <tijensse> pong
[16:00:25] <kkoehne> pong
[16:00:31] <johanna> pong
[16:01:05] <SinanTanilkan> I'd like to propose an update to the agenda for this meeting:
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> 1. Update on the bigger items for Qt 5
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> - Documentation
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> - Examples
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> - Webkit library renaming
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> - Tools renaming
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> - Packaging
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> 2. Discuss the schedule for the Qt 5.0.0 release
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> 3. Prioritizing what to fix for Qt 5.0.0 and how we work with these priorities
[16:01:08] <SinanTanilkan> 4. Future meetings
[16:01:15] <SinanTanilkan> Any objections or comments?
[16:01:19] <thiago> SinanTanilkan: pong
[16:01:25] <lars> pong
[16:02:19] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. We just had a look trough the bigger items for Qt 5 and for the bug situation, so i propose we go trough them here breifly.
[16:02:36] <SinanTanilkan> The newdocs branch was merged yesterday.
[16:03:00] <SinanTanilkan> There is still a lot of work remaining on documentation, a lot of the people in oslo is focusinig on it.
[16:03:19] <sahumada> does the newdocs branch affect the packaging or how we build the docs ?
[16:03:35] <iieklund> propably yes
[16:03:53] <iieklund> some tweaks needed into mksrc.sh, simo looking after that now
[16:04:05] <SinanTanilkan> Good.
[16:04:07] <steveire> pong
[16:04:08] <treinio> yes, 'make docs' should work now afaik
[16:04:26] <SinanTanilkan> Regarding the examples, there is also a lot of work remaining. The teams from Berlin are focusing on this.
[16:05:05] <steveire> Can I add triaging of existing bugs to the agenda? I'd like to know if https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-24094 is still valid and still a release blocker for example.
[16:05:30] <kkoehne> Andre is coordinating the examples , but he's not here, neither is mauricek... but it's an ongoing effort, from what I've heard
[16:05:31] <SinanTanilkan> I agree. Let's do that under agenda item # 3
[16:05:36] <tijensse> SinanTanilkan: figured out that we don't have an example manifest file for qt 5 and I think the current solution is to create that one manualy
[16:05:55] <SinanTanilkan> tijensse: Ok.
[16:07:06] <tijensse> SinanTanilkan: at qt 4 I think that was generated somehow, but this is nothing for the current release
[16:07:19] <SinanTanilkan> Ok.
[16:07:38] <SinanTanilkan> tijensse: Is it safe for me to assume that you are handling it?
[16:08:23] <tijensse> SinanTanilkan: I am more a proxy for andre at the moment, only had some discussions here ... but it is handled
[16:09:01] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Thanks.
[16:09:07] <SinanTanilkan> Webkit library renaming is getting a lot of attention here. We hope to see the biggest remaining parts shortly.
[16:10:41] <SinanTanilkan> Regarding the tools renaming, I haven't had a chanse to read the mail on dev yet.
[16:10:58] <SinanTanilkan> Thiago, could you give us the highlights?
[16:11:02] <thiago> SinanTanilkan: summary: it affects the release very little
[16:11:14] <thiago> almost all of the relevant changes have gone in
[16:11:27] <thiago> anything remaining will not affect the packaging
[16:11:42] <SinanTanilkan> Great. should we keep it on the list, or is it low risk, and handled by the jira items?
[16:11:51] <thiago> that's a question of defaults in qtbase, the QML tools (1, 2, nil), and writing the external wrapper
[16:12:22] <thiago> I don't know, how do you prefer?
[16:12:51] <SinanTanilkan> If it's no risk of stopping the release anymore, i suggest we just follow the jira items as any other issue.
[16:13:32] <thiago> ok
[16:13:51] <SinanTanilkan> Going of the list the i guess...
[16:14:01] <SinanTanilkan> iieklund: Could you give us a short update on packaging?
[16:14:12] <iieklund> sure
[16:14:49] <iieklund> we noticed that webkit does not build, but sergio got info from simon that we could/should revert to the version that was used for beta2
[16:15:13] <iieklund> simon was not actively working on the webkit issue if I understood right
[16:15:28] <iieklund> any comments on that?
[16:15:41] <iieklund> can we revert to beta2 version of webkit?
[16:15:55] <thiago> not for the release
[16:16:03] <iieklund> rc1 ?
[16:16:09] <thiago> same thing
[16:16:15] <thiago> we can't use the beta2 version forever
[16:16:18] <SinanTanilkan> There are still blockers in webkit that needs fixing for the release.
[16:16:24] <lars> iieklund: sounds like the easiest solution until they are done with the library split
[16:16:29] <iieklund> then we will not get installers for some days
[16:16:29] <thiago> it can be a stopgap to building the packages, but it needs to be fixed eventually
[16:16:37] <SinanTanilkan> I agree.
[16:16:41] <thiago> before RC1
[16:16:46] <lars> thiago: yes.
[16:16:47] <lars> and yes
[16:16:48] <thiago> showstopper for final = showstopper for RC1
[16:17:11] <SinanTanilkan> Let's use the beta 2 version until webkit works again (whish should be shortly).
[16:17:17] <SinanTanilkan> thiago: Agree.
[16:17:17] <iieklund> ok
[16:17:25] <iieklund> next
[16:17:34] <SinanTanilkan> Anything else?
[16:17:41] <iieklund> testing verified that 11.10 built installers run ok on 12.04
[16:17:57] <iieklund> so we decided to build only two linux installers, 32bit and 64bit
[16:18:05] <thiago> yay!
[16:18:06] <sahumada> I also verified that they work on Fedora 16 and Fedora 17 as well
[16:18:22] <thiago> congrats to the people involved in making it work
[16:18:38] <iieklund> timestamp + build number will get appended into installer filenames
[16:18:46] <steveire> Cool
[16:19:12] <iieklund> simo has been checking what changes are needed into src script related to newdocs
[16:19:19] <iieklund> to get the modularized docs out
[16:19:20] --> PikO_ (020d7ea3 at gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #qt-releases
[16:19:31] <iieklund> I will start looking that as well tomorrow
[16:20:01] <iieklund> last one
[16:20:14] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Any comments before the next topic?
[16:20:20] <iieklund> tried to use Jom for builds but at least the latest version of Jom did not work
[16:20:49] <iieklund> that was the last one
[16:20:59] <lars> iieklund: are you talking with joerg about it?
[16:21:16] <iieklund> haven't yet, tomorrow
[16:21:56] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Next topic on the agenda:
[16:22:00] <SinanTanilkan> 2. Discuss the schedule for the Qt 5.0.0 release
[16:22:53] <SinanTanilkan> We are hoping to release Qt 5.0.0 this year, and would like to ask for you support for that goal.
[16:23:26] <SinanTanilkan> I guess what I'm asking is that the releasing team will agree to aim for a release in december.
[16:23:31] <SinanTanilkan> Any opinions?
[16:24:44] <sahumada> I agree .. if everything is in place
[16:25:03] <SinanTanilkan> There might come issues that stop us from doing that, but until anything stops us. I suggest we go for that.
[16:25:06] <thiago> are we producing packages reliably now?
[16:25:33] <SinanTanilkan> iieklund ^^: You are probably the best person to answer this.
[16:26:08] <iieklund> we should get new packages tomorrow
[16:26:17] <iieklund> as we temporarily reverted the webkit
[16:26:25] <SinanTanilkan> I think that except for the webkit issue that was detected today, it has been pretty stable since beta 2.
[16:26:36] <iieklund> yes
[16:26:43] <thiago> the question is whether the process works now, provided that the sources are good
[16:27:01] <lars> thiago: fortunately the packaging changes required now should be minor
[16:27:14] <iieklund> the process should work, there has been build machine issues, but looks more stable now
[16:27:25] <thiago> if that is working, then we just need to come up with release criteria
[16:27:48] <SinanTanilkan> I agree. Which i guess is part of the next agenda topic.
[16:27:51] <treinio> in terms of bugfixes we have to be strict in defining what is really needed and what can wait as it's a touch schedule
[16:27:54] <thiago> and engage the process for Tier 1 qualifications
[16:28:29] <thiago> we cycle in that process until all platforms aiming for Tier 1 can fix their bugs or until the bugs are too hard to fix in 72 hours
[16:29:41] <SinanTanilkan> I remember this discussion from some time back.
[16:30:02] <thiago> I posted a procedure to the releasing ML
[16:30:05] <SinanTanilkan> Why do we think there should be 72 h between every set of packages we propose as candidates?
[16:30:08] <thiago> I have not placed it on the wiki yet
[16:30:16] <kkoehne> QtWebkti right now doesn't build at all with mingw(-builds), so that's something I'm worrying about.
[16:30:24] <thiago> the idea was to avoid the mistake of people testing stale versions
[16:30:56] <thiago> when you announce new packages, all tier 1 candidates have 72 hours to test and create tasks, including raising showstopper issues
[16:31:13] <thiago> at any time in those 72 hours, you can shoot down a package set and bless a new one
[16:31:24] <thiago> but the 72 hours start again
[16:31:50] <SinanTanilkan> I see. So if there are important fixes and a new package is available, we might swithc to the new one.
[16:31:52] <SinanTanilkan> Right?
[16:31:54] <lars> thiago: 72 hours i very long imo.
[16:32:36] <thiago> I know but it's the time we need to give for people to test
[16:33:00] <thiago> we can iterate quickly in the beginning, but for the relesable packages, we need to let people work
[16:33:28] <thiago> remember it involves building, testing and debugging so one can capture tasks
[16:33:48] <thiago> I can easily spend a full day doing this on one platform and not be done
[16:34:32] <lars> sure, one can in principle spend weeks on it. but how much do we really need to have confidence in the RC?
[16:34:54] <thiago> that's why I'm saying 72 hours
[16:35:00] <thiago> build time + test time + create tasks time
[16:35:16] <thiago> we can shorten to 48 hours, but no less I'd say
[16:36:03] -*- kkoehne thinks 48 hours is enough
[16:36:18] <SinanTanilkan> I think this is a very good focus, thiago, but looking at the test results before beta 2, there wasn't that many contributors.
[16:36:58] <SinanTanilkan> Of course we need to give people a chance to test, but if nobody is testing...
[16:37:00] <thiago> we didn't give them time and we didn't announce packages
[16:37:01] <steveire> As long as the 48 hours is not a weekend :)
[16:37:17] <steveire> I need to test on windows and mac which I can only do in the office.
[16:37:17] <thiago> for beta 1, we did get lots of contributions, but then the release was made without receiving all reports
[16:37:29] <SinanTanilkan> thiago: true.
[16:38:30] <-- hanne (~linaae at 202.84-49-38.nextgentel.com) has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
[16:38:48] <SinanTanilkan> treinio has to leave shortly, and he has a few thing on a related topic. Can we jump to that, and come back to this shortly?
[16:38:51] <lars> SinanTanilkan: I believe we should start testing packages already next week. As long as we communicate the known issues that are still being worked on that can be valuable
[16:38:57] -*- treinio has to go
[16:38:59] <thiago> yeah
[16:39:54] <treinio> so my proposal is to continue tracking with the metabug
[16:40:00] <treinio> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27426
[16:40:19] <treinio> but yes, triaging should be done for items on it
[16:40:35] <treinio> as i added all criticals + blockers on it
[16:40:42] <treinio> reported against Qt5
[16:41:35] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Let's go with that if there are no objections.
[16:41:47] <SinanTanilkan> It worked well for beta 2.
[16:41:50] <sahumada> I created the KnownIssues page for RC1 http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt500RC1KnownIssues
[16:42:03] <SinanTanilkan> sahumada: thanks.
[16:42:40] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. I guess we have concluded how the result of triaging is handled.
[16:43:05] <SinanTanilkan> Did we land on 48 h from package is published until rc?
[16:43:37] <thiago> until final or until further notice
[16:44:21] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. So let's say 48 h, unless the release team decides something else?
[16:44:51] <thiago> yes
[16:45:35] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Let's go with that then.
[16:45:42] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: You mentioned  https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-24094 
[16:47:01] <sahumada> I don't think tests should be P1
[16:47:02] <steveire> Yes, it's an old bug, and it's not clear if it's a persistent failure, and it's not clear if it is confirmed
[16:47:34] <steveire> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-24824 is also not confirmed afaics
[16:48:54] <sahumada> should not be P1 either IMHO
[16:49:18] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Set them to p2 then?
[16:49:39] <SinanTanilkan> I'll se if we can reproduce 24094.
[16:49:49] <SinanTanilkan> Let's see what nierob says on 24824.
[16:50:03] <SinanTanilkan> But until there is any response, let's set them as p2.
[16:51:11] <SinanTanilkan> We have looked trough all the issues on https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27426 and it seems most items can be done in not too long.
[16:51:29] <SinanTanilkan> There are a few items i don't know enough about, and it's the ones assigned to you Thiago.
[16:51:47] <SinanTanilkan> would you have a chance to give us an update.
[16:52:05] <thiago> not now
[16:52:10] <thiago> I've been very busy
[16:52:21] <SinanTanilkan> Ok.
[16:52:22] <thiago> I haven't had the time to even drain by review queue since Dev Days
[16:52:29] <thiago> I'd really appreciate help in the tasks if possible
[16:52:49] <thiago> I don't expect any hacking time for the next 2 weeks, given other conflicts
[16:53:03] <SinanTanilkan> Ok.
[16:53:14] <lars> thiago: ok, we can try to find people
[16:53:26] <thiago> but I will take a look at the tasks and close down what's not relevant anymore or reprioritise
[16:53:51] <SinanTanilkan> Thanks.
[16:54:29] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Anything else on this topic before we move to the last topic of the day?
[16:54:59] <-- llee (leonlee at nat/trolltech/x-xdjsnywykyhuyqrv) has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[16:55:10] <SinanTanilkan> 4. Future meetings (Yes, I know. A meeting abot meetings :)
[16:55:30] <SinanTanilkan> This meeting takes pretty long, and as we move closer to the release, we might need to sync more often.
[16:55:53] <SinanTanilkan> To reduce the time we spend in these meetings. Would you be willing to take the meeting on the phone?
[16:56:09] <SinanTanilkan> I will provide local dial-in numbers for Germany and the USA.
[16:56:15] --> llee (leonlee at nat/trolltech/x-ltwjsxnkpcgorhny) has joined #qt-releases
[16:56:15] <steveire> Or reduce it to only what we had as item 3 today.
[16:56:28] <steveire> The rest isn't necessarily relevant to everyone.
[16:56:37] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: True.
[16:56:45] <steveire> Get more agile.
[16:57:01] <steveire> The rest can probably go in an email.
[16:57:10] <thiago> phone is ok for me
[16:57:38] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: If i propose things for the agenda that you do not find relevant. Please help by suggesting changes. This should be our meeting (not mine).
[16:57:42] <thiago> you can schedule the next two weeks in european time since it's unlikely I'll be able to join anyway
[16:57:55] <SinanTanilkan> thiago: thanks for letting me know.
[16:58:36] <SinanTanilkan> Let's continue on irc then, if that's best for the majority.
[16:59:10] <SinanTanilkan> That's all i have for today. Do you know of anything else?
[17:00:07] <SinanTanilkan> Thanks for your help, then. See you next time.
[17:00:38] <steveire> Thanks
[17:00:59] <sahumada> bye
[17:01:16] <johanna> see you
[17:01:33] <thiago> see ya
[17:01:35] <thiago> thanks for coordinating

More information about the Releasing mailing list