From jani.heikkinen at qt.io  Wed Mar 15 11:11:49 2017
From: jani.heikkinen at qt.io (Jani Heikkinen)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:11:49 +0000
Subject: [Releasing] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 14.3.2017
Message-ID: <DB3PR02MB092F716308F7E225166D6BE9D270@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 14th March 2017

Qt 5.9.0 Beta status:
- Creating snapshot for testing ongoing
   * will be based on https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/187645/
   * already available internally via online test client & target to make it publicly available later this week
- known beta blockers here: https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18394

Next meeting Tue 21.3.2017 16:00 CET

br,
Jani

irc log below:
[17:00:09] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ablasche: joaijala: ping 
[17:00:34] <carewolf> pong
[17:00:52] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:58] <fkleint> huh? not canceled?
[17:00:59] <fkleint> anyways
[17:01:41] <jaheikki3> Time to start qt release team meeting
[17:01:46] <jaheikki3> on agenda today:
[17:01:49] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:59] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.9.0 beta status
[17:02:11] <jaheikki3> any additional item to the agenda?
[17:04:34] <jaheikki3> ok, let's browse through the beta status
[17:05:01] <jaheikki3> qt5.git integrations succeed quite well recently
[17:05:20] <jaheikki3> creating snapshot for testing ongoing
[17:05:33] <jaheikki3> will be based on https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/187645/
[17:07:19] <jaheikki3> actually snapshot already available internally via online test client & target to make it publicly available later this week
[17:07:37] <jaheikki3> automated smoke testing ongoing
[17:08:14] <jaheikki3> so far all seems to be pretty much ok
[17:08:43] <jaheikki3> known beta blockers here: https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18394
[17:10:07] <jaheikki3> that's pretty much the status at the moment. Any comments or questions?
[17:11:20] <carewolf> looks good
[17:11:41] <fkleint> Yup, just wondering how updating test pkgs via OnLine INstaller will work..
[17:12:38] <jaheikki3> it should work pretty well & easily but we will see ;)
[17:13:25] <thiago> have we fixed the problem that people who did offline installation can't upgrade?
[17:14:01] <jaheikki3> only known "issue" should be that at the moment we cannot update newest QtCreator snapshot in the public online repository
[17:14:12] <jaheikki3> thiago: unfortunately no
[17:17:04] <jaheikki3> Ok, that's all at this time. Let's try to get snapshot for testing as soon as possible to be able to see how close the beta we are...
[17:17:19] <jaheikki3> Let's end this meeting now & have new one next tue as planned
[17:17:33] <jaheikki3> Thanks your participation. Bye!
[17:18:38] <fkleint> bye



From jani.heikkinen at qt.io  Wed Mar 22 05:25:48 2017
From: jani.heikkinen at qt.io (Jani Heikkinen)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:25:48 +0000
Subject: [Releasing] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 21.3.2017
Message-ID: <AMSPR02MB08703AC1CD64C82A557A0169D3C0@AMSPR02MB087.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 21st March 2017



Qt 5.9.0 Beta status:

- Unfortunately no binary snapshot publicly available yet

   * Work ongoing, hoping one will be available soon

- Creating new snapshot for testing ongoing

   * will be based on https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/188630/

- known beta blockers here: https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18394

- According to plan Beta should be out 5th April & it should be doable



Next meeting Tue 28.3.2017 16:00 CET



br,

Jani



irc log below:
[17:00:23] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ablasche: joaijala: ping
[17:00:33] <ZapB> jaheikki3: pong
[17:00:33] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:16] <jaheikki3> Time to start qt release team meeting
[17:01:23] <jaheikki3> On agenda today:
[17:01:30] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.9.0 beta status
[17:01:40] <jaheikki3> Any additional item to the agenda?
[17:02:07] <ZapB> not here
[17:02:15] <carewolf> pong
[17:03:21] <jaheikki3> Ok, let's browse through the beta status:
[17:03:57] <jaheikki3> To be honest status is pretty much same than last week ;)
[17:04:02] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:04:19] <jaheikki3> No public snapshot available yet, work ongoing to have one as soon as possible
[17:04:54] <jaheikki3> qt5.git integration succeed quite well, next snapshot will be based on https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/188630/
[17:05:33] <jaheikki3> I am hoping we could get snapshot available tomorrow, let's see if that happens
[17:05:52] <jaheikki3> Some beta blockers still open, see https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18394
[17:06:23] <jaheikki3> According to 5.9 plan beta should be out 5th April and that should be doable
[17:06:56] <ZapB> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-59121 just needs verifying
[17:07:54] <jaheikki3> Yeah, fix should be in new snapshot
[17:08:03] <jaheikki3> That's pretty much the status now. Any comments or questions?
[17:10:38] <jaheikki3> Ok, that's all at this time. Let's end the meeting now & have new one next tue as planned. Hoping we have beta candidate packages for testing then...
[17:10:55] <ZapB> thanks and bye
[17:10:55] <jaheikki3> Thanks your participation. Bye!
[17:10:58] <thiago> bye
[17:11:11] <fkleint> bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/attachments/20170322/206aa639/attachment.html>

From jani.heikkinen at qt.io  Thu Mar 23 14:17:02 2017
From: jani.heikkinen at qt.io (Jani Heikkinen)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:17:02 +0000
Subject: [Releasing] first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available
Message-ID: <DB3PR02MB0927C6552A406FBD9207D789D3F0@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Hi all,

We have finally first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available via Qt Online Installer for mac and linux users, windows one coming later today or tomorrow morning. Snapshot is smoke tested & seems to be pretty much OK.
Please download the snaphot (instructions here: https://wiki.qt.io/How_to_get_snapshot_via_online_installer) & take a tour. 
Make sure all beta blockers are listed in https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18394. 

br,
Jani







From julius.bullinger at intel.com  Mon Mar 27 11:24:33 2017
From: julius.bullinger at intel.com (Bullinger, Julius)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:24:33 +0000
Subject: [Releasing] first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR02MB0927C6552A406FBD9207D789D3F0@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB3PR02MB0927C6552A406FBD9207D789D3F0@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <7FC8D04D3E708B4AA8248F6D64E0CB210D7155F9@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+julius.bullinger=intel.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Jani Heikkinen
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 14:17
To: development at qt-project.org
Cc: releasing at qt-project.org
Subject: [Development] first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available

> Hi all,
> 
> We have finally first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available via Qt Online Installer for mac and linux users, windows one coming later today or tomorrow
> morning. Snapshot is smoke tested & seems to be pretty much OK.
> Please download the snaphot (instructions here: https://wiki.qt.io/How_to_get_snapshot_via_online_installer) & take a tour. 
> Make sure all beta blockers are listed in https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18394. 
> 
> br,
> Jani

Hi,

I see there are Windows snapshots available for the open source builds since Thursday. Will they also be made available for Enterprise customers?

Thanks and best regards,
Julius
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928



From jani.heikkinen at qt.io  Mon Mar 27 11:40:08 2017
From: jani.heikkinen at qt.io (Jani Heikkinen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:40:08 +0000
Subject: [Releasing] [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate
 process
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0202MB2948F5552B1CB27E6BF9C49F8F6E0@AM4PR0202MB2948.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM4PR0202MB29480B2D4667E949BBF423778F900@AM4PR0202MB2948.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<9505450.rLpQF0vOJZ@tjmaciei-mobl1>
	<VI1PR02MB1006A7873B41B446B41DAE208C950@VI1PR02MB1006.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>,
	<2265621.Hc078j5Qty@tjmaciei-mobl1>
	<VI1PR02MB10066D2EDF31396B4D62ED178C950@VI1PR02MB1006.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>,
	<AM4PR0202MB2948F5552B1CB27E6BF9C49F8F6E0@AM4PR0202MB2948.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR02MB092F5973877B9000483BF2C9D330@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Hi all,

Ok, I have thought this now a while & discussed internally with Tuukka and few others. I have new proposal which is kind of middle between Tuukka's proposal & current process:

1. From FF to beta we will do things as earlier. Of course we need to find ways to cut the time there but it is different story...
   - Only change is snapshot build distribution via online installer before beta release & beta release as online only (this is already implemented)
2. After first beta release we don't deliver any binary snapshots anymore but do release additional beta releases ~ once per week (with more lightweight process than current releases are done: no blog post from every beta release, limited test round before additional beta N release and full test round when beta N is publicly available, no official approval from release team meetings ...)
   - This is mandatory step now when delivering snapshot & pre-releases via online installer: New snapshot / pre-releases are updates to previous one -> after beta2 is released there is no first beta available via online installer.
3. When beta N is well enough we will create and release RC.
4. If RC seems to be good enough we will release final but if some blocker found during RC testing we will release immediate RC2 (again with more lightweight process) etc..

br,
Jani
________________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turunen at qt.io>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:02 AM
To: Simon Hausmann; Thiago Macieira; development at qt-project.org; releasing at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Hi,

Perhaps it is best to talk with marketing about the name of the “release done immediately after branching to the .0 release branch”. Reading the discussion, it seems that other than the name we are well aligned.

Our current process has “Release candidate” 2 weeks prior to the Final release (see: https://wiki.qt.io/Qt5Releasing).

If we now have the beta2/preview/othername release 4 weeks before the final, our schedule is the following:

Phase                                              Timing
Feature freeze                            T-17 weeks
Alpha release                              T-13 weeks
Beta release                                 T-8 weeks
Soft string freeze                       T-6 weeks
Hard string freeze                     T-5 weeks
Beta2/Preview/XYZ                  T-4 weeks
Final release                                T

In addition to the main phases, there will be snapshots regularly for testing. During the final weeks before the release these snapshots are then considered as possible final release unless testing reveals a need to change something. This part is unchanged.

The main benefit for the change is providing a very close to final package for users to test earlier. During the 4 weeks after Beta there is always a lot of improvements, but after branching to the release branch we should focus only for the high-priority error corrections and polishing the documentation (if not already done earlier).

PS. I would like to shorten the overall duration of the release creation to 12 weeks from FF to final. I think that being more strict about the FF and by having all the needed configurations done early enough, we should be able to cut the time between FF and Alpha as well as between Alpha and Beta. But that is something we can discuss later.

Yours,

                             Tuukka


From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt.io at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Simon Hausmann
Sent: perjantaina 23. joulukuuta 2016 19.02
To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process




Ahhh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your email. Yes, you're right, in that case the branch makes no difference and beta is a better name.





Simon

________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces+simon.hausmann=qt.io at qt-project.org<mailto:development-bounces+simon.hausmann=qt.io at qt-project.org>> on behalf of Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com<mailto:thiago.macieira at intel.com>>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 4:42:12 PM
To: development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 13:27:30 BRST, Simon Hausmann
escreveu:
> I find that the branch is relevant in this context, as it relates to the
> amount of patches going in. The amount of patches going in is IMO related
> to the probably of introducing regressions. The process around the release
> branch, as opposed to the "minor branch", as proven to be a useful
> mechanism for reducing the churn and making people ask themselves: Do I
> really want this change in this release or can it wait?
>
> So from what I think is one metric of quality (not the only one of course),
> the naming of release candidate is more meaningful.

How about this, then? We release beta2 from the 5.n branch right before the
5.n.0 branch is created (or finally branches off). It accomplishes the same
thing that Tuukka wanted: a release containing the code that is in the 5.n.0
branch at the moment it is created, not a few weeks after with some round of
work.

And I really mean "the code that is in the 5.n.0 branch". Since the two
branches at the same at that point, it's only a semantic difference which one
we created the beta2 release from.

--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


From jani.heikkinen at qt.io  Mon Mar 27 11:43:14 2017
From: jani.heikkinen at qt.io (Jani Heikkinen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:43:14 +0000
Subject: [Releasing] first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available
In-Reply-To: <7FC8D04D3E708B4AA8248F6D64E0CB210D7155F9@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <DB3PR02MB0927C6552A406FBD9207D789D3F0@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<7FC8D04D3E708B4AA8248F6D64E0CB210D7155F9@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR02MB092D1701FB0B7B95A2622EB9D330@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>

> Hi,
> 
> I see there are Windows snapshots available for the open source builds since
> Thursday. Will they also be made available for Enterprise customers?
>

Yes, hoping already today

br,
Jani


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io at qt-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Bullinger, Julius
> Sent: maanantaina 27. maaliskuuta 2017 12.25
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Cc: releasing at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+julius.bullinger=intel.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Jani
> Heikkinen
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 14:17
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Cc: releasing at qt-project.org
> Subject: [Development] first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We have finally first Qt 5.9.0 beta snapshot available via Qt Online
> > Installer for mac and linux users, windows one coming later today or
> tomorrow morning. Snapshot is smoke tested & seems to be pretty much OK.
> > Please download the snaphot (instructions here:
> https://wiki.qt.io/How_to_get_snapshot_via_online_installer) & take a tour.
> > Make sure all beta blockers are listed in
> https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18394.
> >
> > br,
> > Jani
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I see there are Windows snapshots available for the open source builds since
> Thursday. Will they also be made available for Enterprise customers?
> 

> Thanks and best regards,
> Julius
> Intel Deutschland GmbH
> Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
> Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
> Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich
> Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


From tuukka.turunen at qt.io  Mon Mar 27 12:52:27 2017
From: tuukka.turunen at qt.io (Tuukka Turunen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:52:27 +0000
Subject: [Releasing] [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate
 process
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR02MB092F5973877B9000483BF2C9D330@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM4PR0202MB29480B2D4667E949BBF423778F900@AM4PR0202MB2948.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<9505450.rLpQF0vOJZ@tjmaciei-mobl1>
	<VI1PR02MB1006A7873B41B446B41DAE208C950@VI1PR02MB1006.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<2265621.Hc078j5Qty@tjmaciei-mobl1>
	<VI1PR02MB10066D2EDF31396B4D62ED178C950@VI1PR02MB1006.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<AM4PR0202MB2948F5552B1CB27E6BF9C49F8F6E0@AM4PR0202MB2948.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<DB3PR02MB092F5973877B9000483BF2C9D330@DB3PR02MB092.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <696A1A0C-CB35-43F2-8B6F-DA634F81511F@qt.io>


+1 from me to this improved approach

--
Tuukka 

On 27/03/2017, 12.40, "Development on behalf of Jani Heikkinen" <development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt.io at qt-project.org on behalf of jani.heikkinen at qt.io> wrote:

    Hi all,
    
    Ok, I have thought this now a while & discussed internally with Tuukka and few others. I have new proposal which is kind of middle between Tuukka's proposal & current process:
    
    1. From FF to beta we will do things as earlier. Of course we need to find ways to cut the time there but it is different story...
       - Only change is snapshot build distribution via online installer before beta release & beta release as online only (this is already implemented)
    2. After first beta release we don't deliver any binary snapshots anymore but do release additional beta releases ~ once per week (with more lightweight process than current releases are done: no blog post from every beta release, limited test round before additional beta N release and full test round when beta N is publicly available, no official approval from release team meetings ...)
       - This is mandatory step now when delivering snapshot & pre-releases via online installer: New snapshot / pre-releases are updates to previous one -> after beta2 is released there is no first beta available via online installer.
    3. When beta N is well enough we will create and release RC.
    4. If RC seems to be good enough we will release final but if some blocker found during RC testing we will release immediate RC2 (again with more lightweight process) etc..
    
    br,
    Jani
    ________________________________________
    From: Development <development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turunen at qt.io>
    Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:02 AM
    To: Simon Hausmann; Thiago Macieira; development at qt-project.org; releasing at qt-project.org
    Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process
    
    Hi,
    
    Perhaps it is best to talk with marketing about the name of the “release done immediately after branching to the .0 release branch”. Reading the discussion, it seems that other than the name we are well aligned.
    
    Our current process has “Release candidate” 2 weeks prior to the Final release (see: https://wiki.qt.io/Qt5Releasing).
    
    If we now have the beta2/preview/othername release 4 weeks before the final, our schedule is the following:
    
    Phase                                              Timing
    Feature freeze                            T-17 weeks
    Alpha release                              T-13 weeks
    Beta release                                 T-8 weeks
    Soft string freeze                       T-6 weeks
    Hard string freeze                     T-5 weeks
    Beta2/Preview/XYZ                  T-4 weeks
    Final release                                T
    
    In addition to the main phases, there will be snapshots regularly for testing. During the final weeks before the release these snapshots are then considered as possible final release unless testing reveals a need to change something. This part is unchanged.
    
    The main benefit for the change is providing a very close to final package for users to test earlier. During the 4 weeks after Beta there is always a lot of improvements, but after branching to the release branch we should focus only for the high-priority error corrections and polishing the documentation (if not already done earlier).
    
    PS. I would like to shorten the overall duration of the release creation to 12 weeks from FF to final. I think that being more strict about the FF and by having all the needed configurations done early enough, we should be able to cut the time between FF and Alpha as well as between Alpha and Beta. But that is something we can discuss later.
    
    Yours,
    
                                 Tuukka
    
    
    From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt.io at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Simon Hausmann
    Sent: perjantaina 23. joulukuuta 2016 19.02
    To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; development at qt-project.org
    Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process
    
    
    
    
    Ahhh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your email. Yes, you're right, in that case the branch makes no difference and beta is a better name.
    
    
    
    
    
    Simon
    
    ________________________________
    From: Development <development-bounces+simon.hausmann=qt.io at qt-project.org<mailto:development-bounces+simon.hausmann=qt.io at qt-project.org>> on behalf of Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com<mailto:thiago.macieira at intel.com>>
    Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 4:42:12 PM
    To: development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>
    Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process
    
    Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 13:27:30 BRST, Simon Hausmann
    escreveu:
    > I find that the branch is relevant in this context, as it relates to the
    > amount of patches going in. The amount of patches going in is IMO related
    > to the probably of introducing regressions. The process around the release
    > branch, as opposed to the "minor branch", as proven to be a useful
    > mechanism for reducing the churn and making people ask themselves: Do I
    > really want this change in this release or can it wait?
    >
    > So from what I think is one metric of quality (not the only one of course),
    > the naming of release candidate is more meaningful.
    
    How about this, then? We release beta2 from the 5.n branch right before the
    5.n.0 branch is created (or finally branches off). It accomplishes the same
    thing that Tuukka wanted: a release containing the code that is in the 5.n.0
    branch at the moment it is created, not a few weeks after with some round of
    work.
    
    And I really mean "the code that is in the 5.n.0 branch". Since the two
    branches at the same at that point, it's only a semantic difference which one
    we created the beta2 release from.
    
    --
    Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
      Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
    
    _______________________________________________
    Development mailing list
    Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>
    http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
    _______________________________________________
    Development mailing list
    Development at qt-project.org
    http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development