[Releasing] Meeting minutes: Qt release team meeting 24.02.2014
Jani.Heikkinen at digia.com
Tue Feb 25 08:03:34 CET 2014
Meeting minutes from Qt release team meeting 24.02.2014
- Qt 5.3 Alpha release is targeted to be done this Thursday
o Still some challenges to get qt5.git integrated in stable & get current content properly compiled in packaging system
- Qt 5.3 packaging changes
o No more essential&addons split in installer, only single installation item for each tool chain
o Provide only latest patch level release in online installer
§ old patch level versions are always available via offline installers
o Installer-Framework #master (1.6) to be used
o New reference installers for WinRT & Winphone arm and x86
o Doc&examples will be put as separate component i.e. not injecting them anymore into each binary package
- We will skip Qt 5.2.2 release to secure Qt 5.3.0 & further releases
- Next meeting Mon 10th March 2014 16:00 CET
Irc log below:
[17:00:42] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: kkoehne: sahumada: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: wolfgang-b: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko ping
[17:00:47] <iieklund> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:36] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:45] <sahumada> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:50] <ankokko2> jaheikki3: pong
[17:02:34] <jaheikki3> Time to start Qt release team meeting
[17:02:49] <jaheikki3> On agenda today
[17:02:49] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.3 Alpha release
[17:02:49] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.3 packaging changes
[17:02:49] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.2.2 release
[17:02:56] <jaheikki3> Any additional items?
[17:04:18] <thiago_> 4.86
[17:04:23] <thiago_> 4.8.6
[17:04:25] <fkleint> jaheikki3: pong
[17:04:30] <carewolf> pong
[17:04:42] <wolfgang-b_> jaheikki3: pong
[17:04:45] <-> thiago_ on nyt nimimerkiltään thiago
[17:05:16] <jaheikki3> thiago: I'll discussed with akseli and 4.8.6 has same status than last week because akseli has been on sick leave. That's why it isn't on agenda today
[17:05:55] <jaheikki3> OK, let's start from 5.3 Alpha release
[17:06:51] <jaheikki3> We have some challenges again to get qt5.git integrated in stable branch at the moment'
[17:06:56] <thiago> ok, thanks
[17:08:01] <-> mapaaso_ on nyt nimimerkiltään mapaaso
[17:08:05] <jaheikki3> And also on packaging side we need to solve some issues to be able to produce src packages which works and has correct content
[17:08:10] <-> wolfgang-b_ on nyt nimimerkiltään wolfgang-b
[17:08:46] <jaheikki3> So that's why we cannot do alpha just now
[17:09:11] <thiago> can you explain what the issues are?
[17:09:29] <jaheikki3> mapaaso^
[17:10:29] <thiago> if it's complex, just write an email and we can get on with the meeting
[17:10:30] <iieklund> android armv5 compilation issue was one item if I remember right
[17:10:42] <jaheikki3> Yes
[17:10:51] <jaheikki3> ANd some signing issue with iOS at least
[17:10:53] -*- thiago has just approved a fix for that
[17:11:28] <sahumada> we dont sign source packages, do we ?
[17:11:47] <jaheikki3> And of course qt5.git needs to get integrated
[17:12:30] <iieklund> sahumada: if you try to build something for ios it tries to sign something
[17:12:56] <thiago> no, we don't sign sources, but we need to ensure that building for iOS works
[17:13:00] <sahumada> iieklund: ah .. that's the developer thing that you need a certificate and blah
[17:13:06] <thiago> and if that includes some signing step, then it needs to work
[17:13:08] <iieklund> sahumada: yep
[17:13:31] <jaheikki3> thiago: true. ANd we are working on that
[17:14:02] <jaheikki3> we are hoping we could solve those soon and put Alpha out during this week
[17:15:30] <jaheikki3> So hoping we could put it out this thursday
[17:17:04] <jaheikki3> Then some Qt 5.3 packaging changes. iieklund^
[17:17:09] <iieklund> ok
[17:17:19] <iieklund> Packaging related changes planned for 5.3
[17:17:36] <iieklund> no more essential&addons split in installer, only single installation item for each tool chain
[17:18:19] <iieklund> provide only latest patch level release in online installer
[17:18:29] <iieklund> -> simplifies overall user experience of online installer
[17:18:29] <sahumada> is that something worth adding to http://qt-project.org/wiki/New-Features-in-Qt-5.3 ?
[17:19:02] <iieklund> sahumada: yes, can be added there
[17:19:11] <iieklund> this also greatly simplifies dependencies with extra packages (enginio, etc.)
[17:19:23] <iieklund> old patch level versions are always available (offline)
[17:19:48] <iieklund> Installer-Framework #master (1.6) to be used, there should be perf improvements
[17:20:03] <sahumada> is enginio also [officially] part of Qt 5.3.0 ? or is QtWebEngine the only new module ?
[17:20:34] <carewolf> QtWebSocket is the the only new module, QtWebEngine will not be in 5.3
[17:20:46] <iieklund> sahumada: as far as I know there will be new enginio release for 5.3.0, but I'd need to double-check that
[17:21:22] <iieklund> the new ifw version should speed up loading online repositories, which have grown quite big already
[17:21:26] <carewolf> i assume Qt3D didn't make it (again)
[17:21:46] <sahumada> so QtWebSockets is the only new module for Qt 5.3.0
[17:21:51] <iieklund> carewolf: jaheikki3: hmm, was there discussion to release it with beta status?
[17:22:28] <jaheikki3> carewolf: iieklund: yes, I think that was what lars said
[17:23:21] <jaheikki3> samuhada: there is also QtQuickWidgets
[17:23:24] <carewolf> I am being told qtwebengine will ship a beta along with 5.3, but not as part of it
[17:24:09] <sahumada> do we get new installers ? I saw WinRT and WindowsPhone listed in http://qt-project.org/wiki/New-Features-in-Qt-5.3 but I am not sure whether we will ship installers for them
[17:24:24] <iieklund> sahumada: yes
[17:24:37] <iieklund> WinRT, Winphone arm and x86
[17:25:39] <sahumada> then they should be part of the CI system I guess
[17:25:43] <sahumada> jaheikki3: ^
[17:26:18] <iieklund> also 64bit mingw482 package is on the wish list but we'll see if we are able to provide it, not guaranteed
[17:27:01] <jaheikki3> sahumada: Yes, I think so
[17:27:09] <iieklund> last one, doc&examples will be put as separate component i.e. not injecting them anymore into each binary package
[17:27:29] <jaheikki3> I need to discuss with Tony about plans to add those to CI
[17:28:01] <iieklund> those are maybe the biggest changes, the list for smaller ones is quite long (general improvements and fixes)
[17:29:28] <jaheikki3> thanks iieklund! Any questions related to this?
[17:29:43] <carewolf> we should perhaps collect some stastics about the number of closed bugs or non-feature commit so we can use that in the press releases for 5.3
[17:30:39] <carewolf> statistics even
[17:31:37] <jaheikki3> carewolf: How to identify nin-feature commit?
[17:31:41] <jaheikki3> non
[17:32:09] <carewolf> anything without changelog entries? Not sure though
[17:33:16] <thiago> important bugfixes have [ChangeLog]
[17:33:46] <jaheikki3> let's see that. Lars is writing the blogpost so I think he can get needed statistic
[17:34:28] <jaheikki3> Then 5.2.2 release
[17:34:46] <jaheikki3> There has been some discussion related to it in irc & mails
[17:35:23] <jaheikki3> There is quite many fixes in so from that point of view it would be good to release it
[17:36:16] <jaheikki3> on the other hand I don't know any so critical one which forces us to release it
[17:36:55] <carewolf> also it is good signal to send, so people don't think we are making a habbit of only making one patch release. And a return to timed releases (.2 one month after .1)
[17:36:57] <jaheikki3> And as I wrote is some email it is pretty huge work for us to produce packages for 5.2.2
[17:37:43] <jaheikki3> because we are now starting to produce packages for 5.3
[17:38:37] <thiago> take a look at the red area here: http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt.branch.absolute.png
[17:38:43] <jaheikki3> I agree it would be good signal to release 5.2.2 but because our limitations I would like to decide we won't release 5.2.2 now
[17:39:34] <thiago> how much would we delay the 5.3 beta if we decided to do 5.2.2?
[17:39:41] <jaheikki3> Because doing 5.2.2 will be really big risk for 5.3 schedule
[17:40:12] <carewolf> I thought it could be done after the alpha, where there is a gap until we need the first beta
[17:41:00] <iieklund> doing 5.3 and 5.2.2 in parallel would mean doubling the cpu capacity needed
[17:41:25] <jaheikki3> carewold: after alpha we need to start producing snapshots for 5.3. At the moment we aren't able to produce packages parallel :(
[17:41:27] <iieklund> it would have impact for 5.3 beta
[17:41:55] <thiago> by how much? Can you estimate?
[17:42:21] <jaheikki3> thiago: it is hard to estimate. But it is weeks, not days
[17:42:23] <carewolf> if we decide to not do one, can we start old/5.2 off release, so the commits there at least still has relavant branch?
[17:43:15] <thiago> what's our current schedule for 5.3.0 beta?
[17:43:27] <jaheikki3> As I wrote in my mail, this will be easier in the future when we have tony's on-demand system up and running
[17:44:00] <jaheikki3> thiago: Beta Release 13th Mar 2014
[17:44:24] <jaheikki3> but because alpha is delayed it will affect to beta as well
[17:44:49] <thiago> so if we do 5.2.2 beta, we will probably have the beta at the end of march
[17:44:52] <thiago> at the earliest
[17:44:57] <jaheikki3> But let's try to keep that delay as short as possible to be able to release final during april as planned
[17:45:08] <jaheikki3> thiago: yes
[17:45:23] <thiago> which would push 5.3 final to end of april, at the earliest
[17:45:47] <jaheikki3> thiago: No, it is already now at the end of april, see http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5.3-release
[17:46:04] <thiago> ok
[17:46:11] <thiago> so mid-May
[17:46:12] <jaheikki3> There is easter time which affects to schedule
[17:46:15] <jaheikki3> yes
[17:46:17] <thiago> we'd fall back to a 6-month cycle
[17:46:18] <jaheikki3> earliest
[17:46:29] <thiago> er, 5
[17:46:45] <carewolf> jaheikki3: we can't have the builds running though easter? Or is it more manpower than cpupower needed?
[17:46:51] <thiago> this is the first time we're trying a 4-month cycle and it looks like we can't do it without compromising
[17:47:15] <thiago> so we either abandon it and go to 5, or we accept a compromise
[17:47:20] <jaheikki3> carewolf: builds are running of course
[17:47:54] <wolfgang-b> maybe, we should delay one release to 7-8 month, giving the release/CI team enough time to clean up?
[17:48:14] <thiago> wolfgang-b: we know 6 months is possible
[17:48:20] <jaheikki3> thiago: I think the target isn't reach the 4 months sycle but to april - october release sychle
[17:48:22] <thiago> we're trying to do 4 and we're facing challenges
[17:48:41] <thiago> jaheikki3: April/October is just as fine as May/November
[17:48:47] <thiago> what we can't do is June/December
[17:49:10] <thiago> and even if we want to do April/October, we can do two 5-month cycles instead of one 4-month cycle and compromise
[17:49:22] <thiago> we just have to choose: what is the least evil?
[17:49:29] <wolfgang-b> yeah, I mean only for one release. Fixing CI and ond demand build system. 4 month cycle keeps the release/ci team quite busy
[17:49:35] <jaheikki3> thiago: target is to reach april - october releases, it is best related to vacation times
[17:50:03] <thiago> if you ask me, March/September is even better
[17:50:06] <thiago> so we release before Dev Days
[17:50:10] <thiago> not on it
[17:51:46] <carewolf> if want to hit march 2015 we need to hit october and not november for 5.4
[17:52:03] <thiago> we could do 3 5-month cycles in a row
[17:52:39] <thiago> if we do 5.3.0 in mid-April, we'd have 5.3.1 in mid to late May; could we get 5.3.2 before Summer vacations?
[17:53:20] <thiago> wait, you said 5.3.0 is already end of April
[17:53:29] <thiago> so 5.3.1 is probably firt week of June
[17:53:33] <jaheikki3> Yes
[17:53:39] <carewolf> yes and 5.3.2 after summer
[17:53:45] <jaheikki3> yes
[17:54:04] <thiago> 5.3.1 is shortly before QCS
[17:54:18] <jaheikki3> So there will be busy times ahead...
[17:54:23] <thiago> pushing 5.3.0 a little risks even 5.3.1 before Summer
[17:54:39] <thiago> I'd say skipping 5.2.2 is the least of the evils
[17:55:31] <carewolf> thiago: what do you think about keeping release as old/5.2 so we at least have the bug-fixes in the 5.2 branch for customers and distros to use as virtual 5.2.2s?
[17:55:46] <thiago> carewolf: we need old/5.2 anyway
[17:55:47] <jaheikki3> I agree
[17:55:51] <thiago> but we'll need the release branch to do 5.3.0 beta
[17:55:54] <wolfgang-b> +1, calling Qt5.2 lts
[17:55:57] <carewolf> that was one of the big things lost in 5.1, we didn't even have the bug-fixes in old/5.1
[17:56:47] <thiago> remember no one will push stuff there
[17:57:05] <thiago> we're no longer testing 5.2, so we don't know if stuff we're doing works
[17:57:36] <carewolf> true, but it will have. What is it? 400 bug-fix commits from the last month?
[17:57:36] <wolfgang-b> at least it is still there, even if unreleased and not fully tested
[17:57:56] <thiago> ok, fair enough
[17:58:12] <thiago> do we agree on skipping 5.2.2 then, so as to not risk 5.3.0 and 5.3.1 further?
[17:58:27] <jaheikki3> +1
[17:58:30] <ankokko2> +1
[17:58:30] <akseli> +1
[17:58:34] <wolfgang-b> +1
[17:58:35] <iieklund> +1
[17:59:01] <thiago> carewolf: ?
[17:59:05] <carewolf> +1
[17:59:09] <thiago> ok
[17:59:20] <jaheikki3> Great. Let's then skipp 5.2.2
[17:59:36] <thiago> could we create 5.2.2 sources packages and put them somewhere in the server?
[17:59:37] <fkleint> +1. .. but for the future, do we generally say 5.3.2, 5.4.2, etc won;t happen due to resoucrce constraints, or do we aim to do them?
[18:00:04] <thiago> I think we need 5.3.2, at least to break the pattern
[18:00:16] <fkleint> Developers need to know whether it makes sense to push to stable after 5.X.1 at all
[18:00:20] <thiago> it looks like we could get it by mid- to late August
[18:00:25] <fkleint> and customers typically want 5.X.2...
[18:00:39] <jaheikki3> true. And we are working on to enable that
[18:00:42] <thiago> I'm guessing 5.4 feature freeze will be late August
[18:00:47] <iieklund> fkleint: the on-demand system should help us in the future to be able to produce different releases in parallel
[18:01:16] <carewolf> we could also make an exception of 5.3. If we can solve CI issues it would be a good place to try an LTS other than 4.8
[18:01:21] <thiago> alpha in sept; beta during dev days, final in mid November
[18:01:48] <wolfgang-b> is there any reasonable eta on the on-demand system?
[18:01:51] <thiago> carewolf: I like the idea of LTS, but it's probably a topic for QCS
[18:02:12] <jaheikki3> thiago: carewolf: true
[18:02:14] <carewolf> yes
[18:02:28] <wolfgang-b> +1 for the LTS. However we should take a stability and not feature release for it
[18:02:29] <iieklund> wolfgang-b: we first test it in CI, after that the plan is to enable it also in the packaging
[18:02:36] <thiago> if we do that, we should sync up with distro LTS too
[18:02:47] <thiago> Ubuntu's is when? 14.04? We've missed it.
[18:03:04] <thiago> kernel LTSI is usually each year, around mid year
[18:03:48] <wolfgang-b> let's do some investigation on this and discuss it at QCS or the dev/release list
[18:03:57] <jaheikki3> +1
[18:04:18] <jaheikki3> Was there anything else or just a next meeting?
[18:05:15] <jaheikki3> I am on vacation next week so I propose to have next meeting 10.3.2014 if we manage to put alpha out during this week
[18:06:05] <thiago> looks good to me
[18:06:38] <wolfgang-b> fine with me
[18:06:58] <fkleint> ok, crossing fingers John gets the printer stuff in
[18:07:17] <jaheikki3> OK,let's then end the meeting now and have next meetin 10.3. Thanks for everyone.
[18:07:23] <jaheikki3> bye
[18:07:32] <iieklund> thanks, bye
[18:07:40] <wolfgang-b> bye
[18:08:16] <ankokko2> bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Releasing