[Releasing] Meeting minutes: Qt release team meeting 15.09.2015

[Heikkinen Jani]

Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 15th September 2015

Qt 5.5.1 status
- All blockers in should have fix available, fixes needs to be integrated in qt5.git
- Qt5.git integration failing because of tst_qdeclarativetextedit failure
--> No Qt 5.5.1 release during this week. Let's see if we could put Qt 5.5.1 out during next week

Qt 5.6 Beta status
- No binary snapshot yet, work ongoing to get those as soon as possible
- Packages are still coming from old packaging system, target to take binaries from new ci when all enablers in place
- XCode on OS X 10.8 to be upgraded to 5.1
- API reviews to be done as soon as possible	

Next meeting Tue 22nd Sep 2015 16:00 CET

Br,
Jani

Irc log below:

[17:01:09] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: kkoehne: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ablasche: ping
[17:01:34] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[17:02:14] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:02:51] <jaheikki3> Time to start qt release team meeting
[17:02:58] <jaheikki3> on agenda today:
[17:03:06] <jaheikki3> qt 5.5.1 status
[17:03:17] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.6 beta status
[17:03:27] <jaheikki3> any additional item to the agenda?
[17:05:12] <jaheikki3> lets start from 5.5.1 status
[17:06:17] <jaheikki3> we should have fixes for all blockers in https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-46863 in, just waiting for qt5.git integration
[17:07:06] <jaheikki3> qt5.git integration (https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/125584/) just failed because of tst_qdeclarativetextedit failure, someone needs to study that
[17:08:12] <jaheikki3> change files are still missing :( few are already in but most of those are still missing
[17:09:02] <jaheikki3> so before we can release Qt 5.5.1 we need to get at least most important change files in and qt5.git integrated 
[17:09:26] -*- thiago will do qtbase's today then
[17:09:47] <jaheikki3> thiago: great, thanks!
[17:09:59] <thiago> actually, tell you what, let's do one changelog file for everything. 5.5.1 isn't a big release
[17:10:07] <thiago> if we split into smaller files, no one will read them all
[17:11:16] --> fkleint (fkleint at nat/digia/x-yxrkafhqyntjoczw) liittyi kanavalle #qt-releases
[17:11:26] <jaheikki3> ok for me. But there is few already done & in. Maybe just take content from those in than one as well...
[17:14:18] <jaheikki3> So it is clear we cannot release 5.5.1 during this week but maybe during next one...
[17:14:30] <jaheikki3> Any comments / questions?
[17:16:25] <jaheikki3> ok, then qt 5.6 beta status
[17:17:04] <jaheikki3> unfortunately we haven't been able to produce binary snapshots yet
[17:17:42] <jaheikki3> work is ongoing & all known issues are solved now
[17:18:23] <jaheikki3> new binary builds are ongoing
[17:18:58] <jaheikki3> if those succeed now we might get first binary packages still during this week
[17:20:03] <thiago> still waiting for the CI templates to change
[17:20:06] <jaheikki3> Packages are still coming from old packaging system, work is ongoing to get binaries from new CI system 
[17:20:08] <thiago> there are important changes that need to be in 5.6
[17:20:29] <thiago> for 5.6, we need XCode on OS X 10.8 to be upgraded to 5.1
[17:22:31] <jaheikki3> is 5.1 available for 10.8? http://wiki.qt.io/Qt-5.6.0-tools-and-versions has 5.0.2 for 10.8 and if I remember correctly that was newest one for it
[17:23:06] <thiago> it is available
[17:23:37] <thiago> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#Xcode_5.0_-_6.x_.28since_arm64_support.29
[17:24:06] <thiago> this raises the minimum XCode version, but not the minimum OS X version
[17:25:23] <jaheikki3> ok
[17:26:01] <jaheikki3> That doesn't affect to packaging at all but ci systems needs to be updated
[17:26:54] <jaheikki3> something else for 5.6?
[17:27:54] <thiago> API reviews
[17:28:04] <jaheikki3> ahh, true.
[17:29:09] <jaheikki3> I think Tony has updated the script. I'll discuss with fregl to start the reviews as soon as possible
[17:29:47] <thiago> API reviews and header diff are not the same thing
[17:30:48] <jaheikki3> yeah, but if I understood correctly tony updated the diff script so that it will include new api's in as well
[17:31:56] <thiago> I understand that
[17:32:00] <thiago> but that's not correct
[17:32:08] <thiago> we do API review much earler than the header diff
[17:32:13] <thiago> it's too early for header diff now
[17:33:37] <jaheikki3> Ok, how we should proceed then? I think plan was to do API review + header diff sanity check ~ now & official header diff after the beta
[17:34:26] <thiago> I had never heard of header diff sanity check
[17:34:42] <thiago> so that's news to me
[17:34:48] <thiago> are you sure people will review those huge diffs now?
[17:35:02] <fkleint> Looking at the header diff's can't hurt, though?
[17:35:06] <thiago> it takes me a *long* time to do it
[17:35:12] <fkleint> lars: ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did you have any plans?
[17:35:17] <thiago> fkleint: right, but I don't want to do it twice
[17:38:26] <jaheikki3> i'll discuss with lars about this & make sure API reviews will be done as soon as possible
[17:38:34] <fkleint> yup
[17:38:50] <thiago> ok
[17:39:51] <jaheikki3> I think it was all at this time. Let's have new meeting next Tue at this same time, OK?
[17:40:29] <fkleint> +1
[17:41:02] <akseli> +1
[17:41:18] <jaheikki3> great. Let's end this meeting now. Thanks and bye!
[17:41:39] <fkleint> bye
[17:43:32] <thiago> thanks jaheikki