[Releasing] Meeting minutes: Qt release team meeting 04.08.2015

Wed Aug 5 06:53:39 CEST 2015

Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 4th August 2015

Qt 5.6 status:

* Feature Freeze & branching from 'dev' to '5.6' should happen Monday 10th August. Couple of risks reported in ML

** Openssl issue in macOS

** qt5.git update doesn't work at the moment

--> If these aren't ok latest this Friday we cannot have FF as planned

* Some new modules coming still in, see requests in ML

** Can be taken in as technology preview status now

** To be decided later if tp status can be removed before final release (if nobody finds anything serious during review)

Qt 5.7 initial schedule

* FF 18.12.2015

* Alpha 2.2.2016

* Beta 3.3.2016

* RC 14.4.2016

* Final 28.4.2016

Qt 5.5.1 schedule

* Target to release 5.5.1 during September

--> Branching ~ at the end of August, to be seen a bit later

** Qt 5.5.1 blockers here: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-46863

Next meeting Tue 11.8.2015 16:00 CET

* Short 5.5 post mortem in the agenda

br,

Jani

irc log below:

[17:00:18] <jaheikki3_> akseli: iieklund: kkoehne: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ablasche: ping
[17:01:36] <kkoehne> jaheikki3_: pong
[17:01:57] <thiago> jaheikki3_: pong
[17:02:16] <kkoehne> jaheikki3_: pong
[17:02:24] <jaheikki3_> Time to start Qt release team meeting
[17:03:13] <jaheikki3_> Many of us are still on holiday but on the other hand there isn't that much on the agenda today:
[17:03:31] <jaheikki3_> -Qt 5.6 status
[17:03:41] <jaheikki3_> - Qt 5.7 initial schedule
[17:03:53] <jaheikki3_> Any additional item to the agenda?
[17:04:19] <kkoehne> Does it make sense to have a 5.5 post-mortem here?
[17:04:47] <thiago> 5.5.1
[17:05:31] <thiago> at least an idea of when 5.5.1 is to be expected
[17:05:45] <jaheikki3_> kakoehne: Well, I think we could have one here as well. Let's take it in the agenda next time when more people available & there is a bit time for everyone to prepare for it. OK?
[17:05:58] <kkoehne> sure
[17:06:20] <jaheikki3_> thiago: True, let's discuss it as well
[17:06:33] <jaheikki3_> Let's start from Qt 5.6 status:
[17:07:01] <jaheikki3_> As I wrote in dev ml FF & branching should happen next monday
[17:07:49] <jaheikki3_> There is couple of issues reported in CI side which are a risk for that schedule
[17:08:12] <thiago> when will we know?
[17:08:49] <jaheikki3_> let's see, no LE known yet :(
[17:09:05] <kkoehne> I guess we'll have a sliding window again where changes can still be staged in dev?
[17:09:06] <jaheikki3_> I think openssl issue in mac side should be easy to fix
[17:09:38] <kkoehne> well, fixing the CI machines is one thing. Getting anything through the CI is a different matter :)
[17:09:47] <jaheikki3_> but qt5.git update issue might take more time.
[17:09:56] <jaheikki3_> kkoehne: true...
[17:10:19] <thiago> can we at least agree we'll know by Friday EOD (European time) whether the freeze will kick in?
[17:10:30] <jaheikki3_> kkoehne: Yes, soft branching will be used again as earlier
[17:10:34] <kkoehne> jaheikki3_: Ossi is back only next week, AFAIR . I'm pretty sure he has an opinion on the branching :)
[17:10:40] <thiago> if the CI team isn't happy with their solution by the time they go home, we don't have a freeze
[17:11:06] <jaheikki3_> thiago: Ok for me
[17:11:34] <jaheikki3_> kkoehne: ok ;)
[17:13:43] <jaheikki3_> There is also proposals for new modules for 5.6 in dev ml, please give +1 if you agree
[17:14:05] <thiago> I'm concerned with having less than a week before code submission and feature freeze
[17:14:13] <thiago> we don't have the time to review them
[17:14:26] <thiago> can we accept them as technical preview only, for now?
[17:15:39] <kkoehne> I'm not sure the label 'technical preview' makes much sense for Qt Purchasing, since the API is already freezed for commercial users.
[17:15:54] <thiago> it's new for the Qt Project
[17:15:54] <jaheikki3_> thiago: I am not sure if that QtSpeech was meant to be TP, most probably. I have asked that already, no answer yet.
[17:16:04] <thiago> the Qt Project does not guarantee the API will remain the same
[17:16:31] <jaheikki3_> kkoehne: Yeah, I was wondering that same...
[17:16:49] <thiago> our current precedents of importing API from third party sources (QMimeDatabase) is that they change considerably
[17:17:53] <kkoehne> thiago: Right, though this is a bit different because, from the commercial user's point of view, Qt Purchasing is part of Qt already.
[17:18:11] <kkoehne> thiago: Though we might end up with QtPurchasing2 or so ... I'm not familiar with the API :)
[17:18:12] <thiago> from the Free Qt Foundation Agreement, it isn't
[17:18:40] <thiago> I understand how users may perceive it, but this opens precedents
[17:18:53] <thiago> anyone could come in and say "I've got some users using this already, so you can't change the API"
[17:19:06] <thiago> the Qt Project always reserves the right to make the API better before it releases
[17:19:27] <thiago> now, you guys have probably done a good job, but we can't prevent the review
[17:19:37] <thiago> half a week isn't long enough
[17:19:44] <kkoehne> I'm not familiar with the Qt Purchasing API at all :)
[17:20:20] <jaheikki3_> But accepting those in qtproject as TP should be ok. Actually those are already now breaking rules agreed earlier, see http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2015-June/021809.html so accepting those in as TP should be a good compromise...
[17:21:20] <thiago> jaheikki3_: that's just a release team decision, which we can always change
[17:21:29] <thiago> governance changes are more difficult
[17:22:10] <jaheikki3_> true
[17:23:16] <kkoehne> I think we should just have a look at the API (whatever the label is we want to stick on right now).
[17:23:38] <kkoehne> We can always back off after feature freeze.
[17:24:17] <thiago> if it's TP, it's fine because it's not subject to API freeze
[17:24:59] <kkoehne> http://doc.qt.io/QtPurchasing/ looks pretty minimal :)
[17:25:12] <kkoehne> thiago: Well, feature freeze is not an API freeze. it's a feature freeze ...
[17:25:30] <thiago> true, but the point is that they are tied
[17:26:05] <thiago> if we find incomplete features or stuff not ready for beta, it's fine because they're TP
[17:27:13] <kkoehne> Fair enough. But would be allow removing the TP level in the case that nobody finds anything serious before the final release?
[17:28:04] <jaheikki3_> kkoehne: That is just what I was planned to propose. You were much quicker ;)
[17:28:27] <thiago> not sure
[17:28:29] <thiago> maybe
[17:29:46] <jaheikki3_> Lets take those in as TP now & check later if TP status can be removed from purchasing, ok?
[17:30:58] <kkoehne> +1
[17:31:55] <jbrianceau> thiago: could you +2 this one : https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/122143/ ? (you already +2 its previous version)
[17:32:32] <jaheikki3_> Seems to be OK now. I think this was all from 5.6 at this time
[17:32:39] <thiago> jbrianceau_brb: only after my pending review count drops below 90
[17:32:49] <jaheikki3_> Then Qt 5.7 initial schedule:
[17:32:57] <jbrianceau_brb> thiago: fair enough :)
[17:33:54] <jaheikki3_> Tuukka has sent his "proposal" a while ago, see http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/2015-June/001973.html
[17:34:34] <jaheikki3_> I agree we should still target to april-october releases, as agreed earlier
[17:35:20] <jaheikki3_> That would mean we need to have FF for 5.7 4.1.2016 to be able to release final at the end of april
[17:35:56] <jaheikki3_> Plan is based on same data which was used for 5.6 planning
[17:35:56] <thiago> I don't see the point in FF in early Jan
[17:36:07] <thiago> even if we work during the Christmas break, there's no one to review
[17:36:13] <thiago> past experience
[17:36:18] <jaheikki3_> thiago
[17:36:20] <thiago> so I'd move it to before christmas
[17:36:43] <jaheikki3_> thiago: Ok for me, it would be even better
[17:37:19] <jaheikki3_> I think it should be then 18.12
[17:38:31] <kkoehne> Well, we can always try ;) +1
[17:38:50] <jaheikki3_> Changing FF from 4.1 -> 18.12 doesn't affect to other schedule at all ;)
[17:41:06] <jaheikki3_> So initial plan for 5.7 would be: FF 18.12.2015, Alpha 2.2.2016, beta 3.3, RC 14.4 and final 28.4.2016
[17:42:49] <jaheikki3_> Ok, then 5.5.1 schedule:
[17:43:12] <thiago> why so long between the FF and the alpha?
[17:43:24] <thiago> how many actual weeks of work are there?
[17:43:31] <jaheikki3_> thiago: 4
[17:44:00] <jaheikki3_> That is what it has taken earlier with 5.1 -> 5.4
[17:44:08] <thiago> is that our usual time between FF and alpha release?
[17:45:12] <jaheikki3_> thiago: Yes. earlier we have planned only one week for that but it hasn't ever happened ;) 4 weeks pretty much average
[17:45:30] <jaheikki3_> of course we will release alpha earlier if possible
[17:46:13] <jaheikki3_> Any other comments?
[17:46:34] <kkoehne> not from my side
[17:46:36] -*- kkoehne has to go now
[17:46:51] <thiago> none from me
[17:48:51] <jaheikki3_> OK. then the 5.5.1: I think we could release 5.5.1 somewhere in September. During august is too early, there is some open blockers in https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-46863 & issues with qt5.git integration
[17:49:07] <thiago> ok
[17:50:53] <jaheikki3_> Branching '5.5.1' from '5.5' might happen at the end of August, lets see that a bit later...
[17:51:57] <jaheikki3_> I think that was all at this time. Ok to have new meeting next Tue at this same time?
[17:54:11] <jaheikki3_> Seems to be Ok ;) Let's end this meeting now. Thanks & bye!
[17:55:05] <thiago> bye, thanks jani

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/attachments/20150805/166bb84e/attachment.html>