[Releasing] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 7.2.2017

Jani Heikkinen jani.heikkinen at qt.io
Wed Feb 8 11:37:01 CET 2017

Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 7th February 2017

Qt 5.9.0 Alpha status:
- we aren't in the alpha yet
   * We haven't been able to integrate latest changes in qt5.git (in '5.9') yet
   * Alpha blocker list here: https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?jql=filter%3D18348%20
- Target to get Alpha out as soon as possible
   * We will have Chromium 53 based qtwebengine in alpha & update it between alpha and beta

Qt 5.9.0 beta & rc:
- We will use new release work flow proposed by Tuukka T (http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/2017-January/004407.html)
   * No changes to old work flow before beta release
   * The main idea is that we will release Beta2/Preview/XYZ (naming is still a bit unclear) immediately after branching from '5.9' to '5.9.0'

Coming patch level releases:
- We should release 5.6.3 and 5.8.1 (in addition to Qt 5.9.0) during H1/2017
   * As seen with with 5.6.2, 5.7.1 & 5.8.0 this will be challenging: doing parallel releases requires too many hardware resources & needs lots of manual testing effort
   * Jani to check resourcing etc for the next meeting

Next meeting Tue 14th February16:00 CET

Jani Heikkinen
Release Manager

irc log below:
[17:00:40] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ablasche: joaijala: ping
[17:00:44] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:23] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:45] <jaheikki3> Time to start qt release team meeting
[17:01:51] <jaheikki3> On agenda today:
[17:02:02] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.9.0 Alpha status
[17:02:10] <jaheikki3> Any additional item to the agenda?
[17:02:20] <thiago> 5.8.1 timelime
[17:02:25] <thiago> 5.6.3 timeline
[17:03:43] <jaheikki3> thiago: I haven't discussed those internally yet, Ok to check those in the next meeting?
[17:04:16] <thiago> we can discuss now
[17:04:38] <thiago> at least which one we'd like to get out first, etc.
[17:04:45] <jaheikki3> thiago: I would like to check our RnD mgmt opinion before that
[17:04:48] <fkleint> I'd say Alpha is not there yet, we have QML crashes pending 5.8 merge and unclear font issues
[17:05:45] <thiago> I think we can have an opinion too
[17:05:56] <thiago> R&D and others can comment after we emit an opinion
[17:06:07] <thiago> you don't have to have one, but this group can
[17:06:30] <thiago> or even then, your not having an opinion is not a reason to skip the dsicussion
[17:06:45] <jaheikki3> Ok, fair enough ;)
[17:06:59] <jaheikki3> Let's shortly discuss those as well
[17:07:28] <jaheikki3> But first Qt 5.9 Alpha status:
[17:07:53] <jaheikki3> As fkleint wrote we aren't in the alpha yet
[17:08:15] <thiago> yeah
[17:08:35] <jaheikki3> We haven't been able to integrate latest changes in qt5.git (in '5.9') yet
[17:09:21] <jaheikki3> QTBUG-58683 & QTBUG-58556 is preventing that at the moment
[17:10:18] <jaheikki3> first one is under work by lars, second one we have a fix in '5.8' & waiting for merge
[17:11:30] <jaheikki3> There is also some other blockers in alpha blocker list (https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?jql=filter%3D18348%20) but to be honest I haven't checked if all those are really alpha blockers or not
[17:11:56] <thiago> doesn't look like I can help with either
[17:11:58] <jaheikki3> API review is also ongoing, thanks to eddy. See http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2017-February/028639.html
[17:13:19] <jaheikki3> And first we need to get latest changes in qt5.git to see where we are with alpha. But we should be quite close because at alpha we will release only src packages as usual
[17:13:34] <jaheikki3> Any comments / questions ?
[17:14:34] <carewolf> note the timing of qtwebengine alpha is interesting. It is probably better to do it with the current 53-based branch, once the 55-based goes in, a few things are going to be disabled while they stabalize, and having Windows builds disable probably doesn't make sense in the alpha
[17:14:55] <carewolf> so before packaging just ping me and ask for a sha :D
[17:15:25] <jaheikki3> carewolf: ok, I'll try to remember that ;)
[17:15:42] <jaheikki3> Ok, it was all about 5.9 at this time
[17:16:05] <jaheikki3> Then those patch level releases: 5.8.1 & 5.6.3
[17:16:07] <thiago> carewolf: what are the chances of getting 55 before the alpha?
[17:16:40] <thiago> before we move on, is there anything we change in our workflow based on what Tuukka requested?
[17:16:44] <carewolf> depends on the timing of the alpha. It is mostly ready, but a number of tests and build configurations are always going to take time to ensure works
[17:16:49] <thiago> do we do a beta 1 and 2?
[17:17:15] <thiago> carewolf: are there any feature changes in the module with the update?
[17:17:33] <carewolf> sort-of but ofcourse not api visible
[17:18:23] <carewolf> it is mainly web API features, and very few and minor ones of those
[17:18:58] <jaheikki3> thiago: i think we should try that. For me it seems there weren't any objections for that, it was just naming which caused discussion
[17:20:23] <thiago> ok
[17:20:37] <thiago> but no changes at least until 5.9.0 branching time?
[17:20:44] <thiago> when do we branch?
[17:21:12] <thiago> carewolf: I'd say it's mostly ok to get it in for beta, but please make sure it happens early so it doesn't disrupt package generation
[17:21:45] <carewolf> well hopefully next week, which is why I was afraid to conflict with alpha
[17:22:16] <jaheikki3> yes, no changes until 5.9.0 branching time. That should be ~ mid/end of April
[17:24:52] <jaheikki3> carewolf: we are trying to get alpha out as soon as possible so I propose to have that 53 based WE in alpha & update it between alpha and beta as you proposed
[17:25:20] <carewolf> I agree
[17:25:54] <thiago> sounds reasonable
[17:26:28] <jaheikki3> Ok, something else related to 5.9?
[17:28:02] <jaheikki3> Ok now those patch level releases: 5.8.1 & 5.6.3
[17:28:41] <jaheikki3> thiago: did you have something on your mind related to those?
[17:28:45] <thiago> I think we should do 5.6.3 first
[17:28:56] <thiago> how difficult was it to do 5.6.2 last time?
[17:29:34] <jaheikki3> thiago: actually it was quite hard to do it at same time whit Qt 5.8.0
[17:30:03] <jaheikki3> and there were 5.7.1 as well
[17:30:18] <thiago> what was the difficulty? Running both at the same time?
[17:30:24] <thiago> or were there problems?
[17:30:24] <jaheikki3> Biggest challenges were with resources, both human and HW
[17:31:22] <jaheikki3> doing paraller releases takes so much hw resources & needs lot's of manual testing effort as wekk
[17:31:55] <thiago> then I propose we do 5.6.3 builds first, and only after the release do we start 5.8.1 (or 5.9.0 beta1, TBD)
[17:32:09] <thiago> since 5.9.0 alpha does not require builds, we could get started soon
[17:34:13] <jaheikki3> well, even we don't release binaries our ci system is doing builds for alpha as well. But it is true that there isn't that much packaging & RTA at alpha phase
[17:35:00] <jaheikki3> But on the other hand we need to do builds for 5.9 not to be able to start offering binary snapshots as soon as possible. That is essential for keeping the schedules
[17:35:59] <jaheikki3> So that's why I wouldn't start 5.6.3 yet, maybe after we have first binary snapshot available for qt 5.9.0
[17:37:42] <carewolf> but if that means no 5.8.1 either, we have to be very clear in out messaging that 5.9.0 is a bug-fix release, or we will be giving the impression we are not doing bug-fix releases anymore
[17:38:24] <thiago> I'd like to get the 5.6.3 release out as soon as we can
[17:38:33] <thiago> before 5.9.0 beta if possible
[17:38:44] <jaheikki3> thiago: any reason for that?
[17:38:45] <akseli> thiago: may I ask why such hurry with 5.6.3 release?
[17:38:54] <thiago> it's been 3 months since we released 5.6.2
[17:39:00] <carewolf> also after 5.9.0 wouldn't that be summer-break?
[17:39:51] <thiago> that makes 5.9.0 quite late, actually
[17:40:10] <carewolf> isn't the timing of 5.9.0 for last day of may?
[17:40:14] <thiago> I'd hope to release it by mid-May, so we have one more month before the break
[17:40:31] <thiago> but still, we need to release 5.6.3 and 5.8.1 before the break
[17:40:36] <jaheikki3> Well: for me the most important thing is to get 5.9 out as planned. And then it is 31st May
[17:40:53] <thiago> not arguing with that priority
[17:40:58] <thiago> but we need the other releases too
[17:41:51] <thiago> we may skip 5.8.2 (yes, 5.8), but we can't skip 5.8.1
[17:43:56] <jaheikki3> i think there isn't that hurry with 5.6.3, at least I don't know any that urgent fixed. But 5.8.1 is hard: At the moment 5.8.0 seems to be quite good but as you wrote we most probably have to do it.  but doing 3 releases during this spring will be really hard...
[17:44:13] <jaheikki3> fixed==fixes
[17:45:09] <thiago> I know, but I don't think we have an option
[17:45:26] <thiago> we're not in a hurry for 5.6.3, but I think it takes priority over 5.8.1. We can discuss that
[17:45:36] <thiago> but as I said, we need both out by the end of June
[17:46:53] <jaheikki3> true, otherwise it will be end of august or even beginning of september...
[17:47:16] <thiago> ok, so I think we need you to take a look at resourcing and R&D now
[17:47:31] <thiago> can you check what is feasible, for next week?
[17:47:48] <jaheikki3> yes I can
[17:48:11] <jaheikki3> I'll do that & let's discuss more in next weeks meeting
[17:49:12] <jaheikki3> Ok, I think this was all at this time
[17:49:17] <thiago> thanks
[17:49:42] <jaheikki3> Let's have new meeting Tue 14th February 16:00 CET
[17:49:47] <jaheikki3> Thanks & bye!
[17:49:58] <fkleint> bye

More information about the Releasing mailing list