[Releasing] [Development] brown paper bag issue in Qt 5.6.1 packages
jani.heikkinen at qt.io
Wed Jun 22 07:03:28 CEST 2016
Actually https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-53761 is a blocker. Priority isn't correct at the moment but in reality the bug is preventing any bigger and a bit complex applications working correctly. Unfortunately bug isn't describing that well enough :(
That's why we need to update the packages just with that one fix. And that's why it isn't new 5.6.2 release (in my opinion), it is just 5.6.1 + hotfix. There was already request 'because you are doing new release please include this fixes' etc :) and that is unfortunately impossible now, just before summer holidays, sorry.
And what comes to tag: we have used '-1' tag earlier (in enterprise repositories) and we didn't see any reason to change that 'hotfix' tagging scheme. It was discussed in irc as well but at least for me no-one really says why '-1' pattern is wrong. There was just opinions for and against and because we have used '-1' tag earlier it was selected this time as well. Another reason was the package naming: We have some tools which cannot handle 220.127.116.11 but can handle 5.6.1-1 in package names and it is better to use same format in the tag what is used in package names.
But if there is really some reason why v5.6.1-1 don't work and v.18.104.22.168 would work then it is really ok for me to change the tag. But let's don't change that just because of opinions...
From: Development <development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:42 AM
To: releasing at qt-project.org
Cc: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] [Releasing] brown paper bag issue in Qt 5.6.1 packages
On quinta-feira, 16 de junho de 2016 10:38:02 PDT Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> Unfortunately we noticed https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-53761 is
> actually a brown paper bag issue for Qt 5.6.1 release. That's why we need
> to update release packages with change
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/162677/ . We will "release" new
> packages (Qt 5.6.1-1) as soon as fix is in qt5.git & we have created and
> tested the packages from new content. It is much easier and safer to select
> that option instead of releasing Qt 5.6.2 before summer vacations.
I've just noticed this email.
QTBUG-53761 is not P0, so it did not warrant new packages.
The naming for the new tag is totally unacceptable. It should have been
v5.6.2. We own up to our errors. If 5.6.1 wasn't good enough for anyone, then
we release v5.6.2 immediately after.
And if for some reason it was too difficult to bump everything that was
scheduled for 5.6.2 to 5.6.3, then at the very least we should have used
v22.214.171.124, which is probably what everyone making Qt packages will need to use
since a dash is completely unacceptable in release versions.
I propose that we delete the bad tag, retag and rerelease with a better name.
Let's not make rash decisions again.
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Releasing