[Releasing] [Development] Starting preparations for Qt 5.1

[Knoll Lars]

On 3/18/13 3:22 PM, "Oswald Buddenhagen" <oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:24:23AM +0000, Ahumada Sergio wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Making of Qt 5.1 minor release will soon start:
>> 
>> - Plan is to move 'dev' into 'stable' branch on March 19th.
>> 
>i'd like to raise a formal objection.
>
>CI was virtually unusable for two weeks now.
>due to that there is a completely unreasonable backlog of changes meant
>for 5.1 now. it makes no sense to re-target (or even deny them) due to
>infrastructure problems.

We have said that we'll move to time based releases. Should we stop this
because we aren't yet good enough in controlling our systems? I don't
think so. It might feel unfair to some people, but we've had these
discussions about some features missing the deadline every single minor
release.

Now if there are one or two features that are vital to make Qt 5.1
possible, we can discuss exceptions for those. But then we need to make
sure they go in in the next two days. Which features would these be?

>also, we didn't have a single qt5.git integration in several weeks now.
>that means that there is a fair amount of uncertainty involved (well, in
>fact, i know that it's broken - my half-integrated patch series
>contributes to that).

Yes, that is a concern for me as well.

If you're already claiming responsibility for at least part of the
problem, could you then help getting it fixed?
>
>consequently we should delay the freeze by at least one week.
>
>> - I haven't planed to create any branch yet for commits already in
>>'stable' and not in 'release'. So speak up if this is needed.
>> 
>in fact, thiago and me already decided that we'll create an old/5.0
>branch from stable right before we merge dev.

Not that I'm principally opposed to this, but please remember proper
process: These should at least get discussed on this ML, not just get
decided by two people and then announced.

Lars