[Releasing] Meeting minutes: Qt release team meeting 05.01.2016
jani.heikkinen at theqtcompany.com
Thu Jan 7 09:45:53 CET 2016
Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 5th January 2016
Qt 5.6 status:
- Unfortunately some build related changes are waiting for a fix to https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-943
* Those needs to be in well before RC, issues linked in QTQAINFRA-943<https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-943>
--> We need to postpone branching a while. Let's hope we get needed changes in soon & we can start soft branching already during next week
Qt 5.7 status:
- Some QNX/std::atomic related changes missing from dev branch atm
* Needs to be fixed before FF, bug report to be created by Thiago
* Simon has a patch available, waiting for comments from QNX folks
- No other FF/branch blockers known at the moment
--> We cannot start branching yet :(
--> FF will be delayed a while ( a week at least). We will check the status at next weeks meeting
Qt 5.5.2 plans:
- No plans to release Qt 5.5.2 at all; let's focus to get 5.6 and 5.7 out.
Next meeting: 12.1.2016 16:00 CET
irc log below:
[16:00:58] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ablasche: ping
[16:01:14] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[16:02:27] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[16:03:26] <carewolf> jaheikki3: pong
[16:03:35] <jaheikki3> time to start qt release team meeting
[16:03:46] <jaheikki3> on agenda today:
[16:03:53] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.6 status
[16:03:59] <thiago> 0) happy new year everyone
[16:04:23] <fkleint> thanks, same to you
[16:04:26] <jaheikki3> Yeah, true. Happy new year for everyone!
[16:04:33] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.7 status
[16:04:42] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.5.2 plans
[16:04:51] <jaheikki3> Any additional item to the agenda?
[16:06:38] <jaheikki3> Ok, let's start from 5.6:
[16:07:06] <jaheikki3> Beta was finally released just before Christmas, wuhuu!
[16:07:36] <jaheikki3> Feedback has been pretty positive, I don't know anything which were badly broken
[16:08:23] <jaheikki3> Of course there was bugs as usual, most important ones linked in RC metabug
[16:08:33] <fkleint> oh, ius thereone?
[16:08:37] <fkleint> oh, is there one?
[16:08:48] <w00t> jaheikki3: has there been much feedback, given the release timing (christmas/NY)?
[16:09:23] <fkleint> Whatever happened to Eskil's proposal to do this by priority / fix version? (no longer have metabugs)?
[16:10:23] <jaheikki3> fkleint: yes there is. But I think we should move to use 'fix to' field as Eskil proposed
[16:10:33] <fkleint> hm,ok, but Id?
[16:10:35] <akseli> Issues to be fixed before Qt 5.6.0 RC https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-48845 (Created: 19/Oct/15)
[16:11:21] <jaheikki3> thanks akseli!
[16:11:47] <jaheikki3> w00t: At least I haven't heard anything...
[16:11:53] <thiago> when is the target for RC & for branching?
[16:12:06] <thiago> someone said ossi wanted a second beta
[16:12:14] <lqi> ossi said...
[16:12:43] <jaheikki3> Target for RC is 26th Jan
[16:12:45] -*- lqi just wants to know when 5.6.0 branch out and will do the 5.5->5.6 merge before that
[16:13:14] <jaheikki3> So we need to start branching already during this week and finalize it during next one
[16:13:23] <ossi|tt> yes, there are at least three issues marked as P1 pending which all depend on the CI, you know, not falsifying the build environment.
[16:13:54] <thiago> note that the std::atomic changes still aren't in
[16:14:02] <jaheikki3> ossi|tt: hmm, but why second beta?
[16:14:02] <thiago> do you want me to add them to the bug?
[16:14:09] <thiago> I need the QNX toolchain in the CI patched
[16:14:17] <ossi|tt> what is passing through CI now doesn't actually work in the real world in many configs
[16:14:27] <ossi|tt> jaheikki3: some of my changes are rather intrusive
[16:14:58] <jaheikki3> thiago: Please do
[16:15:04] <ossi|tt> jaheikki3: i won't insist on an actual second beta, but there is no way we make an rc a few days after i put them in.
[16:15:53] <ossi|tt> jaheikki3: and that requires that the CI is actually fixed in the first place. it doesn't seem that the task is on the immediate TODO list at all.
[16:15:56] <jaheikki3> ossi|tt: I agree. We should have time to create snapshot & test those well before beta. When those changes are coming in?
[16:16:07] <ossi|tt> yeah, exactly...
[16:16:15] <thiago> ossi|tt: how soon can the CI be fixed?
[16:16:38] <ossi|tt> ask simon, fregl and jedrzej
[16:17:20] <ossi|tt> i have no business in this. i'm not going to learn go *and* how the thing works to fix it myself.
[16:17:23] <fregl> ossi|tt: this is about not using make install and the install roots but instead creating tarballs of the build directories?
[16:17:31] <ossi|tt> fregl: yes
[16:17:49] <fregl> OK, it was not on my list of priorities for 5.6 because I didn't think this was a blocker.
[16:18:13] <ossi|tt> fregl: you mean, except that it's marked as P1 and multiple 5.6 P1 depend on it? ;)
[16:18:20] <fregl> sure
[16:18:59] <jaheikki3> ossi|tt: what is the bug id(s)?
[16:19:11] <thiago> fregl: make install needs to work...
[16:19:26] <thiago> of course, if we don't test it, packagers will
[16:19:40] <ossi|tt> jaheikki3: all linked from https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-943
[16:19:49] <thiago> but they've already resorted to creating their own sources from Git...
[16:20:20] <jaheikki3> ossi|tt: thanks
[16:21:18] <fregl> thiago: make install works just fine
[16:21:56] <jaheikki3> ok, but it seems we cannot start branching yet
[16:22:24] <thiago> not until QNX is fixed, at least
[16:22:25] <fregl> the problem is that ossi|tt wants to make it not work for in prefix builds in the future
[16:23:21] <fregl> thiago: we decided we don't want to patch the qnx toolchain so heavily - our customers won't have the patches either, iirc
[16:23:22] <ossi|tt> it's mostly windows users being affected, as the default are non-prefix builds there. and framework builds are affected as well.
[16:23:40] <thiago> fregl: fair enough. But we will patch.
[16:23:41] <fregl> that was discussing with Simon, none of use felt comfy making the qnx changes
[16:23:53] <thiago> fregl: just lightly
[16:24:03] <jaheikki3> thiago: What is the bug id for QNX issue?
[16:24:03] <thiago> the std::atomic code must be fixed
[16:24:09] <thiago> jaheikki3: I haven't created one yet
[16:24:20] <jaheikki3> thiago: OK
[16:25:20] <thiago> fregl: and customers will have to patch it. The patch will be in the qtbase source code.
[16:25:22] <fregl> thiago: OK, I haven't personally looked at the patches, seems like we might be talking about different patches
[16:25:37] <thiago> fregl: possibly. I only care about std::atomic.
[16:26:07] <jaheikki3> Ok, let's continue with these issues offline & postpone branching at least a week. Let's check the situation in next meeting, ok?
[16:26:14] <thiago> ok
[16:26:51] <jaheikki3> Then Qt 5.7 status:
[16:27:11] <thiago> fregl: uh... we are talking about different things. My patches are for 5.7.
[16:27:12] <thiago> my bad.
[16:27:48] <fregl> thiago: ah, good if that doesn't block 5.6
[16:27:51] <thiago> nope
[16:28:03] <thiago> it comes on now for 5.7...
[16:28:13] <jaheikki3> :)
[16:28:31] <fregl> well, there I'm a hint less worried about the schedule
[16:29:32] <jaheikki3> So we need to postpone 5.7 FF & branching a while because of those QNX changes? If we try to keep current plans we should start branching 8th Jan & finalize it 15th Jan (=FF)...
[16:29:43] <thiago> yeah
[16:30:01] <thiago> I am sending Simon, rafael and the QNX folks an email asking for an update.
[16:30:53] <jaheikki3> Ok, great. Let's check 5.7 branching & ff again after a week as well
[16:30:54] <thiago> simon has the patch, we're just waiting for a position from the QNX folks on what they'd like us to do
[16:31:04] <thiago> other blockers besides this?
[16:31:24] <jaheikki3> At least I don't know any at the moment
[16:34:17] <jaheikki3> That's all about 5.7 at the moment. Then 5.5.2 "plans"
[16:34:28] <thiago> I have a question about 5.5.2 plans
[16:34:31] <thiago> are there any plans? :-)
[16:35:27] <fregl> I'd like to not create a 5.5.2 and rather get many 5.6.x releases out
[16:35:35] <thiago> agreed
[16:35:40] <thiago> let's focus on getting 5.6 out
[16:35:52] <jaheikki3> that was my proposal as well
[16:35:53] <fregl> one question is how many people really need/want a 5.5.2 and if there is any extremely strong reason for it
[16:36:14] <thiago> the only reason for 5.5.2 is because 5.6 is late
[16:36:17] <jaheikki3> At least I haven't heard anyone requesting 5.5.2 so heavily
[16:36:27] <thiago> if we could easily create a 5.5.2, I'd say do it. But we know it isn't easy.
[16:36:39] <fregl> yes, but considering the effort, 5.5.2 would probably make it even later
[16:36:52] <fregl> since it's the same people doing the work on two pieces of infrastructure
[16:36:54] <jaheikki3> thiago: true. doing 5.6 and starting 5.7 will take so much effort
[16:37:45] <jaheikki3> doing 3 releases at same time would be a big mess i think....
[16:38:25] <jaheikki3> so I think we should focus on 5.6 and 5.7 and drop 5.5.2 at this point
[16:39:05] <jaheikki3> and if someone introduces really good reasons for 5.5.2 lets then think it again
[16:39:14] <fkleint> fregl: Do you have support's opinion on this?
[16:39:24] <fkleint> fregl: a ton of fixes went to 5.5...
[16:39:44] <fkleint> fregl: and there are some 5.5.0->5.5.1 regressions unfortunately..
[16:40:06] <thiago> 5.5 branch does contain fixes and some are important
[16:40:18] <thiago> for people carrying 5.5 for long term (linux distros), they should take those patches
[16:40:22] <thiago> but we can't find the time to release
[16:40:53] <thiago> gotta go for boarding my flight
[16:41:24] <jaheikki3> fkleint: we discussed about 5.5.2 in mgmt meeting (support mgmt was there as well) and no one disagreed about dropping it at the moment
[16:41:31] <fkleint> Oh,aha
[16:41:43] <jaheikki3> thiago: ok, thanks about participation
[16:41:51] <fkleint> they will realize it only afterwards, I think ;-)
[16:41:59] <jaheikki3> ;)
[16:42:51] <jaheikki3> yeah, but as I said we can rethink this later if needed. But let's focus now to 5.6 and 5.7
[16:44:48] <anshaw> ultimately by the time 5.6.0 comes out most will have forgotten about wanting 5.5.2, its mainly because 5.6.0 has taken so long that it started to become an issue, get 5.6.0 out then it is easier to promote the whole LTS thing and people will forget about 5.5.2
[16:45:16] <anshaw> though it would be better if it was clear what the plan was either way, its not helping us in communicating to customers about if/when it is coming
[16:46:58] <jaheikki3> anshaw: Well, the plan is not to do 5.5.2 ;) And we can maybe change the plan if someone gives good reasons enough
[16:47:10] <fkleint> Then we should really have closed the 5.5 branch...all this branch confusion and merge issues
[16:47:12] <fkleint> anyways
[16:47:16] <anshaw> exactly
[16:48:44] <jaheikki3> Ok, This was all at this time. Let's have new meeting after a week at normal time (16:00 CET)
[16:49:36] <jaheikki3> Thanks for your participation. Bye!
[16:49:39] <fkleint> bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Releasing