[Releasing] Meeting minutes: Qt release team meeting 05.05.2014

Heikkinen Jani Jani.Heikkinen at digia.com
Tue May 6 11:00:29 CEST 2014

Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 05.05.2014

-        Plan is to put Qt5.3 RC out during this week

o   Fixes available for remaining (known) blockers. Qt5.git integration & new packages after that needed

-        Updated Qt5.3 final plan: 20th May

-        4.8.6 will be updated because we managed to mess up the mingw package somewhat: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-38706

o   https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,84567 + rebuilding the packages with '-qt-style-windowsxp -qt-style-windowsvista'

-        Next meeting Mon 19th May (If RC out during this week)


irc log below:
[17:00:43] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: kkoehne: sahumada: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: wolfgang-b: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ping
[17:00:48] <wolfgang-b> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:49] <kkoehne> jaheikki3: ping
[17:00:51] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:52] <ankokko_> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:52] <peter-h> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:53] <carewolf> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:54] <sahumada> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:59] <tronical> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:05] <fkleint> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:34] <jaheikki3> Time to start Qt release team meeting
[17:01:44] <jaheikki3> On agenda today:
[17:01:50] <jaheikki3> Qt5.3 RC status
[17:01:58] <jaheikki3> Qt5.3 Final schedule
[17:02:05] <jaheikki3> Any additional item?
[17:02:06] <vladimirM> jaheikki3: pong
[17:03:05] <jaheikki3> let's start from Qt5.3 RC status
[17:03:24] <jaheikki3> RC candidate packages created last Wednesday
[17:03:41] <kkoehne> jaheikki3: Maybe Qt 4.8.6 mingw problems later on?
[17:04:00] <kkoehne> jaheikki3: (for the agenda)
[17:04:19] <jaheikki3> kakoehne: OK, akseli is away but we can discuss those as well
[17:04:41] <jaheikki3> qt5.3 RC: Few new item found which have to be fixed before RC is out, last one today
[17:05:02] <jaheikki3> But last fixes are now under integration. If succeed then qt5.git integration & new packages
[17:05:20] <jaheikki3> Hoping we could get packages ready tomorrow morning & put RC out Wed Or Thu this week
[17:05:51] <jaheikki3> Any questions or comments?
[17:06:01] -*- kkoehne searches for the meta-issue , again ...
[17:06:04] <thiago> let's do it soon
[17:06:14] <jaheikki3> Metabug here: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-37065
[17:06:31] <jaheikki3> thiago: agree...
[17:07:08] <kkoehne> jaheikki3: Thanks. Why do we have so many P0/P1 that aren't linked here?
[17:07:28] <kkoehne> jaheikki3: Anyway, different topic, I guess ...
[17:07:31] <carewolf> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-38625
[17:08:02] <carewolf> it considered it blocking for release, but was unsure if it had to block RC. The fix is being merged now though, so it will be in
[17:08:40] <jaheikki3> carewolf: yes, if integration succeed it will be in RC as well
[17:08:41] <tronical> carewolf: IMO good for release but shouldn't block RC. not a regression against 5.2 also
[17:09:23] <carewolf> it is a regression against 5.2, but the most critical fix was already merged.
[17:10:08] <tronical> ohh, I see, the bug report said that it 5.1 it broke
[17:10:13] <jaheikki3> kakoehne: All p1 aren't seen as a blocker, I haven't check if some p0 is missing from metabug
[17:10:13] <tronical> either great that you have a fix :)
[17:10:52] <thiago> we've been slow with this RC
[17:10:53] <kkoehne> jaheikki3: Okay, thanks.
[17:10:56] <thiago> we need to get it out for more testing
[17:10:56] <jaheikki3> But metabug should contain all issues seen as a blocker for RC and now all should have fix
[17:11:06] <thiago> please consider that when proposing new blockers
[17:11:14] <carewolf> tronical: sorry, linking wrong bug https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-38169
[17:11:53] <carewolf> jaheikki3: so the last blockers have fixes?
[17:12:11] <jaheikki3> carewolf: yes, last one is integrating
[17:13:02] <jaheikki3> OK, as said let's try to put RC out as soon as possible
[17:13:13] <jaheikki3> then Qt5.3 final schedule:
[17:13:37] <jaheikki3> According to current plan final should be out this Wed, which isn't possible because RC isn't out yet;)
[17:13:52] <jaheikki3> Time between RC & Final needs to be something ~2 weeks
[17:14:23] <jaheikki3> So I think we shoud target Final 20th May
[17:14:30] <jaheikki3> If we get RC out this week
[17:14:31] <carewolf> will that impact our ability to get 5.3.1 out before summer?
[17:14:58] <jaheikki3> carewolf: I think we need to get 5.3.1 out before summer holidays
[17:15:13] <jaheikki3> There is already quite many fixes in for 5.3.1
[17:15:45] <carewolf> that just means 5.3.1 RC will have to be tagged only one or two weeks after release of 5.3.0
[17:16:16] <thiago> that's life
[17:16:24] <carewolf> if we want two weeks before final, but maybe that can be shorter for point releases?
[17:16:59] <jaheikki3> carewolf: There hasn't been official RC in patch releases and there hasn't been so much time between RC & final in patch releases
[17:17:29] <carewolf> oaky
[17:18:44] <thiago> 6-7 weeks between now and Summer break
[17:18:45] <thiago> including QCS
[17:18:48] <jaheikki3> OK, let's put RC out as soon as possible & final 20th May. I'll update plan to wiki
[17:19:41] <jaheikki3> Then 4.8.6 mingw. kakoehne^
[17:19:57] <kkoehne> Well, just a heads up that we managed to mess up the mingw package somewhat: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-38706
[17:20:20] <kkoehne> A fix is under review. But it's bad enough that we should consider fixing it in the packaging step, too.
[17:20:58] <kkoehne> (So that we can release a rebuild of the 4.8.6 package with new MinGW, where we enable the missing styles by configure arguments)
[17:21:14] <carewolf> so only a new package for mingw?
[17:21:34] <kkoehne> This affects only MinGW, yes.
[17:21:46] <thiago> no source change, just packaging?
[17:22:23] <kkoehne> Well, we should of course fix it in configure.exe itself, too. But that will have to wait until 4.8.7 then.
[17:22:39] <thiago> I doubt it...
[17:22:52] <kkoehne> thiago: You doubt what?
[17:22:57] <thiago> that we'll fix configure
[17:23:13] <-> peter--h on nyt nimimerkiltään peter-h
[17:23:17] <kkoehne> thiago: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,84567
[17:23:17] <thiago> then again, this affects qt5 too, right?
[17:23:24] <kkoehne> thiago: No
[17:23:39] <kkoehne> thiago: Since there stick to "mingw-g++" as mkspec
[17:24:00] <kkoehne> thiago: It's only for Qt 4.8 that we name it 'mingw-g++-4.6'
[17:24:12] <thiago> oh, I see the fix
[17:24:16] <Net147> win32-g++
[17:24:21] <thiago> I thougth you meant changing to a proper configure fix
[17:24:29] <kkoehne> Net147: Yeah, sorry.
[17:25:33] <thiago> anyway, for right now, we'll release simply a new build, right?
[17:25:45] <thiago> any suggestions on what to name it? We can't silently replace the binaries.
[17:25:53] <kkoehne> thiago: Not sure I understand. I propose that we fix the auto-detection in configure so that it is happy with win32-g++-4.6 (https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,84567). At the same time we should consider re-building the 4.8.6 packages with explicit '-qt-style-windowsxp -qt-style-windowsvista'
[17:26:48] <kkoehne> thiago: Well, we can always add a -1 at the end to the binary names.
[17:27:10] <jaheikki3> Yes, like we have done with online installer (4.8.6-1)
[17:27:41] <kkoehne> qt-opensource-windows-x86-mingw48_opengl-5.2.1-2.exe then
[17:27:52] <kkoehne> or qt-opensource-windows-x86-mingw48_opengl-5.2.1-1.exe . Whatever :)
[17:28:49] <carewolf> 4.8.6-1 ;)
[17:29:42] <kkoehne> carewolf: Yes :)
[17:30:24] <jaheikki3> Seems that we proceed with kakoehne's proposal (or does someone disagree)?
[17:31:57] <niweber> with adding a -1 you will of course inconvenience distribution packagers, but they'll probably manage
[17:32:34] <Net147> Windows distribution packagers?
[17:32:44] <carewolf> niweber: fortunately shouldn't affect windows :)
[17:32:57] <fkleint> yep
[17:33:36] <jaheikki3> OK, let's rebuild 4.8.6 packages with https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,84567 then
[17:33:39] <carewolf> but yes, if the same happened with linux, we would probably use a letter after the last number
[17:33:59] <jaheikki3> Anything else than just next meeting?
[17:34:22] <carewolf> jaheikki3: I wonder what happened to the 5.2 branch, did we decide to forgo it?
[17:34:35] <jaheikki3> carewolf:?
[17:35:01] <carewolf> there is no old/5.2 branch as far as I can tell. I thought we wanted to branch that from release before merging from stable
[17:35:18] <sahumada__> that's the undocumented old/5.2 branch and not part of the official release process
[17:35:29] <carewolf> ah, okay
[17:36:55] <carewolf> so its offtopic? I was just wondering
[17:37:17] <thiago> where is the last 5.2 head then?
[17:38:10] <wolfgang-b> right before the merge from stable to release?
[17:38:24] <thiago> was it tagged or was a branch created from it?
[17:38:30] <thiago> or do I have to search for the commit myself?
[17:38:46] <wolfgang-b> I think the latter
[17:39:48] <thiago> ossi|tt: please create a qtbase old/5.2 branch from bddf6d43590a0d874f447096482eff04c6172b7c^2
[17:39:53] <thiago> I don't care about other modules
[17:40:11] <jaheikki3> If I have understood correctly we will move new branching model immediately after 5.3.0 final release
[17:40:32] <thiago> we still need to have the 5.2 branch
[17:40:42] <jaheikki3> I think plan is also create branches for those old releases as well
[17:40:44] <ossi|tt> yes. but in another place
[17:41:05] <thiago> ossi|tt: so you have the last 5.2 state saved somewhere?
[17:41:12] <-> sahumada__ on nyt nimimerkiltään sahumada
[17:41:33] <ossi|tt> thiago: i always reverse-engineer it with gitk. not a very fulfilling task ...
[17:41:43] <ossi|tt> somebody needs to bug tony to actually configure the branches ...
[17:41:48] <thiago> I've done it for 5.2 now
[17:41:59] <thiago> just create the branch so we don't have to do this searching again
[17:42:04] <thiago> I've done for qtbase, I mean
[17:42:58] <jaheikki3> then next meeting: I propose to skip next monday & have go/no-go meeting for final Mon 19th May at this same time (ir RC is out this week). OK?
[17:44:08] <thiago> if RC is out this week
[17:45:36] <ankokko_> sounds good
[17:45:39] <kkoehne> +1
[17:45:43] <carewolf> +1
[17:45:58] <fkleint> +2
[17:46:02] <jaheikki3> OK, let's put RC out this week & have a next meeting Mon 19th May at this same time!
[17:46:02] <fkleint> approved ;-)
[17:46:20] <jaheikki3> Thanks for everyone & bye!
[17:46:27] <wolfgang-b> bye
[17:46:29] <ankokko_> bye
[17:46:32] <fkleint> bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/attachments/20140506/c05d6c51/attachment.html>

More information about the Releasing mailing list