[Releasing] [Development] New installers available

[Stephen Kelly]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 13:16:42 you wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> I think there should have been an answer on the list to the concern.

Yes. There's no point in posing such questions if the answers are ignored.

Do you think it's important to ask for a list of important patches at all, or 
should we just forego that entirely? Not asking would probably help get an RC 
out sooner.

> But having said that I don't think this should have blocked the RC. 

Is that the kind of claim that should be debated on a case-by-case basis? Is 
that what you intend to ensure happens in the future (ensuring that there is 
time for such discussion, and that the discussion happens)? 

Or do you want to be more clear on what is and is not a release blocking 
issue? Is it always just your call? Then why ask for a list of important 
patches?

You say that completely non-working cmake files is not a blocker for the RC. 
Qt 5.0.0 was also released (to the surprise of many and to my embarassment, 
despite raising it as an issue) with broken cmake files. Now the 5.1.0 RC1 is 
released with cmake files embarassingly completely non-working on Windows.

The brokenness was not discovered by CI because the build tree is so very 
different from the install tree. This relates to the removal of the dlls from 
the lib directory, which happened recently. Unfortunately, it seems that 
buildsystem changes are very common very late into the release cycle. You seem 
to want to ensure that I have no time to check whether such changes break the 
cmake files entirely.

What is your position on whether completely broken cmake files block the 5.1.0 
final release? Consider that such problems are always fixed very quickly when 
discovered. The only delay with the patch I linked to was due to the CI 
system.

> It's
> something we can put into the known issues section on the wiki. And IMO it
> was really important to finally get the RC out.

That's a very obvious position for you to take. 

What causes you to consider 'release as soon as possible, no matter what' over 
one extra day to take a patch noted as important, after a list of such patches 
was requested?

What are the particular issues that prevented releasing the RC two weeks ago? 
What is in-scope for legitimate quality-concerns, in your view? 

Thanks,

-- 
Stephen Kelly <stephen.kelly at kdab.com> | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/attachments/20130618/9e226096/attachment.sig>