[Releasing] Meeting minutes: release team meeting 29.10.2012
Sinan.Tanilkan at digia.com
Mon Oct 29 17:37:43 CET 2012
Thanks for the meeting today. Here are the minutes:
_Next steps with the installers:_
1. Qt Creator will be built on the version of Qt 5 that's in the same package (today it was not), will be solved by starting creator build when qt build is done. Iikka will send an email to releasing whenever this is not the case.
2. Fix warning messages
3. Integrate translations fix
_Support for Mac OS 10.6_
The releasing team discussed removing support for Mac OS 10.6. Lars will how much effort there is to fix the current issues, and see how to proceed.
_Announce meeting schedules_
Release team meeting schedules will be announced on the releasing mailinglist.
The irc log from the meeting follows below.
[15:59:36] <SinanTanilkan> lars, thiago, steveire, ZapB, rosch, mauricek, treinio, iieklund, akseli, joaijala, sahumada, tjenssen: Ping
[15:59:46] <sahumada> pong
[15:59:50] <treinio> pong
[15:59:50] <akseli> pong
[15:59:51] <johanna> SinanTanilkan: pong
[16:00:25] <ZapB> pong
[16:01:09] <lars> pong
[16:01:11] <kkoehne> pong
[16:02:42] <SinanTanilkan> Has anyone seen thiago, steveire, mauricek, iieklund or tjenssen?
[16:02:54] <steveire> pong
[16:03:01] <SinanTanilkan> :)
[16:03:11] <sahumada> SinanTanilkan: he was online some minutes ago
[16:03:34] <SinanTanilkan> sahumada: Thank you. Who do you mean?
[16:03:35] <johanna> iieklund said that he is not sure if he can join the meeting
[16:03:39] <rosch> pong
[16:03:43] -*- kkoehne has just seen maurice, but on his way out ...
[16:03:46] <SinanTanilkan> johanna: Ok. Thanks.
[16:03:50] <eike> (tjenssen is now probably tijensse)
[16:04:04] <SinanTanilkan> eike: Ok, thanks.
[16:04:06] <tijensse> yes I am
[16:04:12] <sahumada> SinanTanilkan: I meant Thiago
[16:04:19] <SinanTanilkan> sahumada: Ok. Thanks.
[16:04:34] <SinanTanilkan> Let's start and hope he joins before we get to the libary renaming.
[16:04:37] --> iikka (~iikka at 184.108.40.206) has joined #qt-releases
[16:04:49] <SinanTanilkan> Any additions to the suggested agenda?
[16:05:18] <SinanTanilkan> Let's start with an update on the issues that must happen before the beta 2 release then.
[16:05:33] --> thiago (~thiago at kde/thiago) has joined #qt-releases
[16:05:37] <SinanTanilkan> Installer scripts first then
[16:05:44] <mauricek> SinanTanilkan: pong
[16:05:53] <SinanTanilkan> johanna: Could you give us an update please?
[16:05:54] <iikka> Linux installers available
[16:05:57] <thiago> hi guys, I can't stay, it's too late
[16:06:07] <thiago> I'm leaving to go to the office now
[16:06:13] <johanna> ok, iikka go ahead :)
[16:06:25] <iikka> no mac installers yet, waiting for one fix into qttranslations from Oswald
[16:06:31] <thiago> so just a quick update on the tool renaming: the tasks are done, but require going through CI (meaning approval too)
[16:06:31] <SinanTanilkan> thiago: Ok. Could we have a talk about lirary renaming today thiago?
[16:06:34] <thiago> see you later!
[16:06:59] <iikka> johanna, did win builds succeed?
[16:07:24] <johanna> iikka: yes, they finished and all was compiled
[16:07:35] <iikka> win installers ready?
[16:07:58] <sahumada> I dont see windows installers http://origin.releases.qt-project.org/digia/5.0.0_beta2/backups/2012-10-29-300/
[16:08:02] <johanna> no, the 32 build wasn't finished, I didn't start installers yet
[16:08:24] <iikka> johanna: at the office still? can you trigger win installers?
[16:08:29] <johanna> it should be ready now
[16:08:40] <johanna> no, I'm at home
[16:08:43] <iikka> ok
[16:08:43] <-- hanne (~linaae at 220.127.116.11) has quit (Quit: hanne)
[16:08:57] <iikka> some known issues in Linux installers
[16:09:17] <iikka> creator uses older pre-built qt5 libs which have the wrong icu lib dependency
[16:09:39] <kkoehne> iikka: We've new linux packages since two hours or so
[16:09:40] <iikka> but as now new libs are available the next creator builds should use the new ones
[16:09:46] -*- lars needs to drive home... I'll be back as soon as I'm there.
[16:09:56] <iikka> kkoehne: ok
[16:10:05] <iikka> then other known issue
[16:10:21] <SinanTanilkan> Should we create packages where creator is not built on the version of qt that is in the package?
[16:10:50] <iikka> no, the creator needs to use the same libs as in the qt5 package
[16:11:13] <tijensse> yes it should because that is a very good test case
[16:11:43] <iikka> ?
[16:12:18] <tijensse> <iikka> no, the creator needs to use the same libs as in the qt5 package <- yes it should ... nothing more ;)
[16:12:24] <iikka> ok :)
[16:12:40] <iikka> marko removed the libxcb-render-util-dev packages from build machines
[16:12:52] <kkoehne> iikka: Is that already reflected in the latest packages?
[16:13:00] <iikka> hmm, no
[16:13:08] <iikka> we need to wait for new installers
[16:13:37] <johanna> hopefully we get full build round tomorrow night
[16:13:44] <iikka> the libxcb-render-util-dev dependency, this caused some issues on certain linux versions
[16:14:10] <iikka> change reflected in packages tomorrow
[16:14:30] <iikka> then sergio noticed two issues in linux installers
[16:14:41] <iikka> there are some files that need more patching
[16:15:11] <iikka> causes unwanted warning messages when the user compiles application
[16:16:21] <iikka> then we fixed some minor issues in the installers. doc registration into assistant, item sorting priorities in the installer gui
[16:16:42] <iikka> johanna: anything else?
[16:17:26] <johanna> no, just if we would get that fix from ossi to next build, we could have pretty good installers
[16:17:43] <-- teemukat (Adium at nat/digia/x-ukqionhtzljjnimh) has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[16:17:52] <iikka> yes, that fix and the qt5 should compile on mac as well
[16:18:01] <SinanTanilkan> johanna: are you reffering to the translations fix?
[16:18:09] <johanna> and that's only blocking mac, linux and windows source builds should be in good shape now (unless there is new commits that break something..)
[16:18:22] <johanna> SinanTanilkan:yes that one
[16:18:25] <-- thiago (~thiago at kde/thiago) has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
[16:18:29] <SinanTanilkan> Ok.
[16:19:10] <SinanTanilkan> So remaining work on the installers is: 1. creator built on qt 5 that's in the packages, 2. Fix warning messages, 3. Integrate translations fix.
[16:19:21] <SinanTanilkan> Did i get everything?
[16:19:56] <iikka> that's the situation pretty much
[16:19:59] <johanna> yes, that's it
[16:20:02] <SinanTanilkan> Thanks.
[16:20:55] <SinanTanilkan> When we create packages where creator is not built on the version of qt that is in the packages. Should we do something to ensure that people don't spend to much time testing them?
[16:21:34] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: Well, we've Linux packages by now, Windows package is in the making ... so I'm positive we'll get up to date packages.
[16:21:58] <SinanTanilkan> kkoehne: Ok. So I'm discussing something that isn't really a problem?
[16:22:06] <SinanTanilkan> kkoehne: That would be great.
[16:22:19] <johanna> is it already decided how creator builds are triggered?
[16:22:34] <johanna> I mean, when there are new qt5 binaries
[16:22:49] <sahumada> the thing is .. we should not create installers if qtcreator does not build .. I think that's what SinanTanilkan is referring to
[16:23:03] <kkoehne> johanna: Right now we trigger them manually. But I understood that they can be configured to run as soon as the binary packages are ready?
[16:23:16] --> ossi|tt (~obuddenh at 18.104.22.168) has joined #qt-releases
[16:23:24] <SinanTanilkan> sahumada: I agree.
[16:23:34] <SinanTanilkan> sahumada: or at least not publish them.
[16:23:35] <sahumada> and installers after all qt5 binares and qtcreator binaries are built
[16:23:38] <johanna> kkoehne: yes, I we can configure bamboo, but let's have a look to that tomorrow?
[16:23:59] <kkoehne> johanna: Well, problem is that we've an all day event here in Berlin tomorrow...
[16:24:24] <johanna> kkoehne: ok, can we do this with iikka..?
[16:24:32] <kkoehne> johanna: But at least I don't have any problems if somebody would poke with the bamboo configuration .
[16:24:52] <iikka> we can do it
[16:24:54] <SinanTanilkan> Sorry. I wasn't able to follow. Could someone tell me what the conclusion was?
[16:25:08] <iikka> I can configure that with johanna
[16:25:19] <iikka> so that creator build triggers correctly from qt5 release build
[16:25:20] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: THe conclusion is that the creator built should be triggered automatically when qt5 binary packages are ready.
[16:25:44] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. So only publish packages where creator is built on the version of qt that is in the same pacakge?
[16:26:19] <johanna> yes, that's the plan
[16:26:23] <iikka> should we delete the first installers from origin to avoid confusion?
[16:27:49] <kkoehne> Let's be flexible here. If e.g. the Mac turns out to be a big problem, we could also live with a recent custom built Qt Creator package like we have right now.
[16:28:27] <SinanTanilkan> kkoehne: I think that if we do that we need to be very precise about communicating it.
[16:30:16] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: Well, I think people might understand that there might be packaging problems, and that it's a beta, not a final thing. Anyway ...
[16:31:13] <SinanTanilkan> kkoehne: Valid point. I'm just afraid that we start wasting peoples time when they test it. If you think we do not, it's fine.
[16:31:38] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: No, the creator package that Eike made is pretty recent.
[16:31:55] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: So it's not that we'd be testing a completely outdated build or so.
[16:32:33] <SinanTanilkan> kkoehne: Ok. I think that's fine. But we need to let people know what they are testing.
[16:32:45] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: Sure
[16:33:09] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Let me see if i have the conclusion right:
[16:33:11] <lars> back...
[16:34:13] <SinanTanilkan> Unless anything else is stated, all published packages include creator built on the version of qt in the same package. If this is not the case, an email is sent to the releasing mailinglist (describing the diff) when the package is published.
[16:34:16] <SinanTanilkan> Ok?
[16:34:49] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: okay from my side
[16:35:14] <johanna> ok, who should send the mail?
[16:35:41] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. iikka: Are you the person overlooking the whole packaging area? (and also the person to ensure this email is sent?)
[16:35:55] <SinanTanilkan> Or is it something for kkoehne, tijensse or eike?
[16:36:18] <iikka> I can send it
[16:36:23] <SinanTanilkan> iikka: Thank you.
[16:36:53] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Next topic then.
[16:37:04] <steveire> So, that's the first point on the agenda done?
[16:37:16] <SinanTanilkan> Yes.
[16:37:38] <SinanTanilkan> I think the remining topics will go quicker.
[16:37:46] <SinanTanilkan> Qt Creator running on Qt 5
[16:37:58] <SinanTanilkan> kkoehne, tijensse: could one of you give an update?
[16:38:22] <tijensse> There was one question from eike about what is the supported mac version
[16:38:22] <kkoehne> SinanTanilkan: I think we explained already the packaging side.
[16:38:32] <SinanTanilkan> Yes.
[16:38:46] <kkoehne> Right, there's some confusion whether 10.6 is still supported, Lars may chime in.
[16:39:29] <lars> currently it's still supported.
[16:39:45] <tijensse> at the moment qt5 is not compiling on 10.6 and the current used buildmachine is 10.7 which should be changed then
[16:39:51] <lars> but I wonder whether it's worth it. Apple is now getting pretty aggressive in deprecating it
[16:41:13] <SinanTanilkan> Any opinions?
[16:41:18] <iikka> lars: tijensse: I got info from simon that current webkit trunk does not support 10.6
[16:41:33] <tijensse> ^^ yes that was the problem
[16:42:09] <lars> yes. the question is how much work we should invest to fix it
[16:42:26] <lars> it's a deprecated OS version by the OS vendor after al
[16:42:44] <eike> lars: tijensse: I'm currently looking into what the current issues are
[16:44:09] <eike> for the version that is in the qtwebkit module, I have so far only hit problems with includes (order, missing ones, and opengl ignoring the -sdk setting)
[16:44:24] <lars> ok, but I think 10.6 might need a wider discussion. multimedia doesn't work there neither.
[16:44:36] <eike> the last one looks like a general bug that needs to be fixed anyhow
[16:45:42] <johanna> how about Visual Studio 2008, we are not building with that currently, should we..?
[16:46:00] <kkoehne> johanna: No, we don't build with Visual Studio 2012 either.
[16:46:10] <johanna> kkoehne: ok
[16:46:17] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Should we bring the discussion about deprecating 10.6 to the mailinglist then?
[16:46:47] <-- iikka (~iikka at 22.214.171.124) has quit (Quit: Lähdössä)
[16:49:09] <tijensse> lars: ^^?
[16:49:29] <eike> can someone try to find out what might be the actual usage of 10.6 out there? :)
[16:49:34] <kkoehne> Apart from this, Qt Creator's still looking reasonable on Windows and Mac, I'd say
[16:49:37] <lars> SinanTanilkan: let's see how difficult it is to fix it first.
[16:49:40] <kkoehne> Erm, Windows and Linux
[16:49:55] <kkoehne> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?sorter/field=status&sorter/order=DESC lists some stuff, but also smaller things
[16:49:56] <eike> mac too
[16:50:04] <lars> and I wanted to talk to a few people to try to find out how relevant it is. but if that indicates that we should deprecate, let's bring it to the ML
[16:50:41] -*- eike has been using qt 5 based qt creator for a week or so now
[16:50:49] <eike> (on mac)
[16:51:31] <SinanTanilkan> eike: Ok. Thanks. How does it look?
[16:51:34] <lars> eike: any larger issues?
[16:53:08] <eike> a few issues with how fonts are rendered
[16:53:21] <eike> though e.g. https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27667 supposedly is already fixed
[16:54:05] <eike> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27402 is still there and makes the welcome page (first visible thing) in qt creator look a bit "thin"
[16:54:55] <eike> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27669 is also still open (font rendering in small widget)
[16:55:34] <eike> but that's look-and-feel that is a bit off and doesn't affect overall usability
[16:56:16] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. Should we move to the next topic. Or is there anything else on creator?
[16:56:36] <SinanTanilkan> Update on error management and QTBUG-27319 - treinio
[16:56:43] <treinio> ok
[16:56:53] <treinio> bugs targeted for beta 2 ( https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27319 )
[16:57:08] <treinio> overview: 2 bugs to be verified on the installers (ICU dep, READMEs), 3 bugs that are in progress but not yet fixed, 2 new ones
[16:57:17] <treinio> The ones still in progress:
[16:57:25] <treinio> QTBUG-26197: Some qtquick1 examples not deployed properly on windows (fix in review)
[16:57:34] <treinio> QTBUG-26960: Mac/OpenGL issue with one of the examples
[16:57:44] <treinio> QTBUG-26902: Keyboard shortcuts/modifiers issue - regression from 4.8 introduced with QPA, missing impl. on xcb, mac (both in progress)
[16:58:37] <treinio> ^ i'm following up those. Two new items on the list (from today):
[16:58:47] <treinio> (doc issue) Qt JS Backend is not a Qt module
[16:58:51] <treinio> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27737
[16:58:55] <treinio> and
[16:59:02] <treinio> Non-Qt-5.0 repos should be removed from qt5.git
[16:59:06] <treinio> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27736
[16:59:22] <treinio> I'll check the doc issue - but QTBUG-27736: I'm not sure how this is related to beta 2 release?
[16:59:43] <steveire> There are patches for both of those that just need to be reviewed/
[17:00:01] <SinanTanilkan> Should 27736 really block the beta 2 if it's the last thing remaining?
[17:00:10] <steveire> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,38416
[17:00:18] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: great.
[17:00:35] <steveire> I don't think it should block beta2, but we *should* document accurately what is in beta2
[17:00:46] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: I agree.
[17:00:50] <treinio> steveire: ah, ok. i'll add them to the bugs
[17:01:33] <steveire> treinio: The other relevant commit is https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,38442
[17:01:42] <treinio> steveire: got it, thanks
[17:02:42] <SinanTanilkan> I would like to suggest that this list only contains issues that should block the release. I agree that we should document what's in and not, but it should be a separate list.
[17:02:58] <sahumada> I agree
[17:03:17] <steveire> Ok. I think that docs issue is a grey area whether it should block the release or not.
[17:03:24] <treinio> as do i - documenting what's in the release can be done elsewhere
[17:03:30] <steveire> We're listing a lot of things which are not actually part of the release.
[17:04:02] <steveire> 'as do i - documenting what's in the release can be done elsewhere' <<< If we do that, we're contradicting what we write elsewhere (in the actual docs)
[17:04:43] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: I don't follow.
[17:05:09] <SinanTanilkan> Please elaborate.
[17:05:55] <steveire> SinanTanilkan: If we document what is in the release in the release notes, but http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/5.0/modules.html still lists QtBluetooth, then the Qt documentation does not match the release notes.
[17:06:25] <steveire> And http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/5.0/qbluetoothaddress.html is in the docs, even though the code isn't actually in the release.
[17:07:21] <steveire> For a clear, correct and consistent message, that kind of documentation issue is a blocker. If we don't think a clear correct and consistent message is a beta2 blocker, then it's not.
[17:07:48] <steveire> Personally I'd very much like a clear correct and consistent answer to the question of 'what is in the beta2 release?'
[17:07:56] <steveire> Is that more clear?
[17:08:02] <SinanTanilkan> Thank you.
[17:08:10] <SinanTanilkan> I think there are 2 questions here:
[17:08:10] -*- lars agres with steveire
[17:08:33] <SinanTanilkan> 1: QTBUG-27319 is only used for blockers (not for documenting what's in the release).
[17:08:43] <SinanTanilkan> 2: Should the doc issue block the release?
[17:08:46] --> thiago (~thiago at kde/thiago) has joined #qt-releases
[17:08:55] <steveire> Yes.
[17:09:08] <SinanTanilkan> And I'm fine with the doc issue blocking the release.
[17:09:24] <steveire> To be clear, I did think the doc issue should block the release when I filed the bug. Especially as I fixed it immediately :)
[17:09:48] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: Ok. Sorry for the confusion then.
[17:09:49] <lars> I think we should have this fixed. Doc was one of the focus areas for the beta2
[17:10:25] <lars> and it would be bad to have QtPim or bluetooth docs in there
[17:10:35] <steveire> Yes
[17:10:43] <SinanTanilkan> I agree.
[17:10:52] <steveire> I'm hoping removing them from qt5.git fixes that, but I'm not sure?
[17:11:14] <lars> steveire: afaik, the online docs are built from there
[17:11:15] <steveire> Maybe there's another patch needed in qtdoc.git?
[17:11:28] <lars> so it should fix it, but it might introduce another set of qdoc errors
[17:11:42] <lars> steveire: I'd assume so, as it might still refer to some of these modules
[17:11:58] <steveire> Yes, qtdoc/doc/config/modules/* seems to be relevant
[17:12:10] <steveire> I'll see about removing them too.
[17:12:29] <SinanTanilkan> Would it make sense to test this before we push the canges?
[17:12:45] <SinanTanilkan> (Hoping you will say yes) :)
[17:13:18] <steveire> I did a test build of qt5.git with the submodules removed.
[17:13:29] <steveire> Or do you mean the docs?
[17:13:31] <lars> steveire: can you try building the docs from qtdoc as well?
[17:14:11] <steveire> I can test after git rm qt3d.qdocconf qtbluetooth.qdocconf qtcontacts.qdocconf qtlocation.qdocconf qtorganizer.qdocconf qtpublishsubscribe.qdocconf qtsensors.qdocconf qtserviceframework.qdocconf qtsysteminfo.qdocconf qtversit.qdocconf yes
[17:14:30] <steveire> But I don't think that should block the removal of the qt5.git submodules.
[17:15:12] <SinanTanilkan> I'm afraid it will take a day or two to get in, and then we spend a day finding a problem, then 2 more days to fix etc.
[17:15:20] <lars> steveire: it doesn't really. and removing them will at least remove the modules form the docs. We might get some dead links to them though
[17:16:32] <-- thiago (~thiago at kde/thiago) has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
[17:16:52] <steveire> SinanTanilkan: Yep. That affects scheduling, but not what needs to be done :)
[17:17:01] <SinanTanilkan> True.
[17:17:24] <steveire> webkit seems to block qt5.git integration at the moment anyway.
[17:17:43] <sahumada> steveire: I added Simon so he can take a look
[17:17:53] <SinanTanilkan> Thanks.
[17:18:01] <steveire> I ran make docs in my qt5 checkout. Where does the result go?
[17:18:36] <johanna> probably a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway: why the online docs are built from qt5.git when we use qtsdk.git to build the binaries and docs to installer..? The content is different
[17:18:46] <lars> steveire: hmmm... I think you need to run qdoc some way in the qtdoc module. otherwise it'll generate the modularized docs that are not really usable
[17:18:51] <lars> apart from testing
[17:19:01] <sahumada> joaijala: no idea .. I didnt even know that :)
[17:19:34] <lars> steveire: run 'make online_docs' in the qtdoc module
[17:19:42] <steveire> lars: Ok, doing that now.
[17:19:48] <sahumada> joaijala: I'll ask tomorrow
[17:19:58] <johanna> I didn't know online docs are built from qt5.git, and can't check that now..
[17:20:01] <lars> johanna: good question. moving it all over to qtsdk would solve the issue as well.
[17:20:15] <lars> but still the qtdoc module would need some cleanups
[17:20:35] <johanna> ok
[17:23:09] <steveire> https://codereview.qt-project.org/38448 seems to work for me. I didn't check for new docs errors, of which I'm sure there are a few.
[17:23:09] <SinanTanilkan> Did we agree to change docs to build forom qtsdk.git?
[17:23:44] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: Thanks.
[17:23:50] <SinanTanilkan> johanna: ^
[17:26:04] <lars> SinanTanilkan: with steveire's change I'm not sure it's required
[17:26:13] <lars> might work without
[17:26:17] <SinanTanilkan> Ok.
[17:26:25] <lars> but I don't know how the creator docs are being generated
[17:27:27] <steveire> So, any more to say on the subject of error management?
[17:27:39] <steveire> I think I took us a bit off-track. Sorry about that.
[17:27:53] <treinio> steveire: no prob. that was all from me
[17:28:03] <lars> steveire: was IMO important
[17:28:21] <lars> SinanTanilkan: next topic?
[17:28:29] -*- mauricek have to leave, sorry
[17:28:32] <SinanTanilkan> Ok.
[17:28:51] <SinanTanilkan> I guess tiago is not here, so we'll have to discuss library renaming some other time.
[17:29:21] <SinanTanilkan> Without it I don't think there is much to say about release readiness.
[17:29:33] <SinanTanilkan> Except that I hope we can release beta 2 before dev days.
[17:29:52] <-- leena (~leena at 126.96.36.199) has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[17:30:05] <SinanTanilkan> So unless there are any objections, I suggest we end the meeting.
[17:30:15] <SinanTanilkan> Thanks for your time.
[17:30:17] <lars> ok. I'll try to get a hold of thiago later tonight
[17:30:17] <steveire> Difficult to say. Is there going to be package testing like we had for the beta1?
[17:30:31] <steveire> The only other thing I'd like to say is:
[17:30:32] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: Yes. I think we have to.
[17:30:35] <lars> steveire: yes.
[17:30:45] <steveire> Thanks for putting the agenda on the mailing list instead of to everyone.
[17:30:51] <lars> steveire: we hopefully will have testable packages for linux and win tomorrow
[17:30:56] <SinanTanilkan> :) Sure. Thanks for the feedback.
[17:31:09] <steveire> I think it would be a good idea also to email about the scheduled time for meetings when that's decided (to the mailing list)
[17:31:22] <SinanTanilkan> steveire: Ok. Will do.
[17:31:25] <steveire> Thans
[17:31:27] <steveire> +k
[17:31:28] <lars> yeah. can't hurt
[17:31:54] <SinanTanilkan> Ok. See you all next time.
[17:31:58] <lars> see you
[17:31:59] <steveire> Thanks, bye.
[17:32:02] <johanna> bye
More information about the Releasing