[Releasing] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 01.09.2020

[Jani Heikkinen]

Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting Tue 1st September 2020

Qt 6.0.0 status:
- Feature freeze is in effect now, see https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-September/040211.html
- API review to be started
   * Findings can be fixed; API is not frozen yet
- Target is to release Qt 6.0 Alpha ~mid September
   * FF exceptions should be in Alpha but if not those can be added later
- Most of critical platforms already in CI
   * Android  builds mostly missing but work is ongoing to add those
   * Some platform updates still ongoing
   * Work ongoing to convert old qmake based builds to cmake ones
      ** All pre-build binary packages are already based on cmake builds
- Branching from 'dev' to '6.0' will be done later; no need to do it now & I would make development harder at the moment

Qt 5.15.1 status:
- New snapshot published last week
- Release content almost in place
   * all known release blockers fixed (blocker list here: https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=22356)
   * only few changes file still under work, see https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/message:%2522Add+changes+file+for+Qt+5.15.1%2522+status:open+branch:5.15.1
- Target is to freeze the release content during this week & get the release out at the beginning of next one

Next meeting tue 8th September 2020 16:00 CET

irc log below:
[17:00:28] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: thiago: lars: frkleint: vladimir-m: ankokko: mapaaso:carewolf: fregl: ablasche: ping
[17:00:34] <lars> pong
[17:00:38] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:25] <jaheikki3> Time to start qt release team meeting
[17:01:32] <jaheikki3> On agenda today:
[17:01:40] <jaheikki3> Qt 6.0.0 status
[17:01:45] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.15.1 status:
[17:01:54] <jaheikki3> any additional item to the agenda?
[17:03:53] <jaheikki3> Let's start from Qt6 status
[17:04:22] <jaheikki3> Feature freeze is in effect now, see https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-September/040211.html
[17:05:26] <jaheikki3> There is few exceptions given but otherwise we should start focusing to maturize content for coming release
[17:05:56] <thiago> I assume API is not frozen
[17:06:02] <thiago> so we're allowed to fix API mistakes still
[17:06:05] <lars> as I said in the mail, no.
[17:06:34] <jaheikki3> Yeah, API reviews should be start now
[17:06:35] <lars> I'll start with a full API review round from next week. 
[17:06:51] <lars> (need to finish the property work this week)
[17:07:25] <jaheikki3> I'll ask addy to run his scripts for API review; that will be good starting point for review 
[17:08:25] <thiago> I'll keep my questions on this to the email
[17:08:34] <lars> Yes, please. At the minimum it'll help us identify the areas where we need to look closely
[17:09:09] <lars> sure :)
[17:09:45] <jaheikki3> Usually we have branched at this time but after discussion in qt company I propose we will delay branching a while; it will make qt6 development easier and there is no hurry to start Qt6.1 development yet
[17:11:03] <lars> +1. I don't want to start cherry-picking into 6.0 just yet
[17:11:36] <thiago> makes sense
[17:11:40] <thiago> we still have too much API to fix
[17:11:50] <thiago> no one should be really working on 6.1 features
[17:12:29] <jaheikki3> true
[17:13:21] <lars> At the minimum the API review should be done before we consider branching
[17:14:17] <jaheikki3> Agree
[17:14:18] <thiago> we may wish to delay even further, given this is the first feature release with the new branching model
[17:15:28] <lars> agree. let's see when we get to a more stable state. The RCs should be done from a branch IMO, anything else we can discuss.
[17:16:21] <jaheikki3> Yeah, let's agree the branching time later
[17:16:49] <jaheikki3> Branching in cherry-pick mode is quite easy and it won't take that long time to complete...
[17:17:41] <jaheikki3>  Qt 6.0 alpha is planned to be released ~mid September but on the other hand those FF exceptions needs to be in alpha
[17:17:47] <jaheikki3>  so let's see if we can keep that plan or not...
[17:18:08] <lars> let's say they should be in the alpha.
[17:18:25] <jaheikki3> Yes, agree :D
[17:18:41] <lars> but as we're still going to do API changes to react to feedback from the alpha it's not a 100% must.
[17:19:20] <lars> if we have usable packages that work at least on the desktop platforms, I'd be ok to label that alpha 1, and rather add a alpha2 a week later
[17:20:18] <thiago> we should release an alpha 1 ASAP
[17:20:25] <thiago> if we need more alphas after that, we release them
[17:20:32] <thiago> with a new buildsystem, we need to get feedback
[17:20:40] <thiago> what's the state of the mobile platforms?
[17:21:17] <lars> as far as I know they look ok. iOS is fine, on Android we miss fat bindary support due to the build system change
[17:21:49] <lars> but you should be able to do android apps
[17:22:28] <jaheikki3> Yes, iOS builds are already in but binaries not in packages, androind builds are still mostly missing
[17:22:44] <thiago> but they build?
[17:23:00] <lars> jaheikki3: I thought the std::pair issue was fixed. Are they simply missing in CI right now?
[17:23:39] <jaheikki3> most probably yes. CI builds were waiting that qt5.git update which came at the end of last week
[17:24:00] <jaheikki3> build system team is working on to get those builds in ci 
[17:24:01] <lars> yes, looks like that. We currently only have one Android platform in CI
[17:24:37] <lars> jaheikki3: would be good to at least enable packages for that one platform and add the other ones as they are added in COIN
[17:25:00] <jaheikki3> lars: Yes, that is under work as well & should be in Alpha latest
[17:25:07] <lars> great :)
[17:25:08] <thiago> are we missing any critical platforms in CI?
[17:25:41] <lars> we are still doing lots of the tests on qmake based builds. It's ongoing work to move those over to cmake.
[17:25:50] <lars> but all pakcages are created from cmake based builds
[17:26:23] <lars> no critical platforms missing as far as I can see, apart from the android ones just discussed.
[17:27:00] <lars> QNX and INTEGRITY are not part of 6.0. Not sure about ICC status right now, but I wouldn't call that one critical neither.
[17:27:11] <jaheikki3> Yes, that is also my understanding. Some planned updates are still on its way as well
[17:27:20] <thiago> ok
[17:27:35] <thiago> so on the topic of qmake... what's left before it can be disabled as a build?
[17:27:40] <thiago> qmake needs to be un-bootstrapped
[17:28:12] <lars> basically removing the remaining cmake based platforms from CI
[17:28:22] <lars> qmake based...
[17:28:25] <thiago> should I ask for details on the ML?
[17:28:31] <lars> and replacing them with cmake based configs.
[17:29:00] <thiago> are we prepared to release 6.0 with qtbase building with cmake and some further module down the line as qmake?
[17:29:05] <lars> some autotests are not yet enabled with cmake, but I think not too many are missing anymore.
[17:29:29] <lars> qtscxml has no cmake support and can be built. does that answer the question?
[17:29:52] <thiago> no
[17:30:04] <thiago> the question is whether qtscxml needs to be ported before we release
[17:31:01] <lars> ok, there are two things: (1) can you use qmake on top of a cmake based Qt build to build an add-on. That seems to work.
[17:31:40] <lars> (2) should we release a module as part of Qt6 if it's not using cmake? I think we shouldn't. So qtscxml should either be ported or not released as part of Qt 6.0 itself.
[17:32:17] <thiago> use qmake for user applications is quite different from using for qt modules
[17:32:34] <lars> that should work as well.
[17:32:47] <thiago> but doesn't need to be guaranteed
[17:32:50] <lars> I've been trying it with some (admittedly smaller) projects
[17:33:03] <thiago> as soon as all official qt modules have been ported and are running with cmake, we can clean up the mkspecs dir
[17:33:21] <lars> probably
[17:33:22] <thiago> or at least not have to maintain it anymore
[17:33:41] <thiago> maintain compatibility, I mean. It has to be maintained for regular uses.
[17:33:49] <lars> yes, but those cleanups can happen towards 6.1 as well. it's IMO not that urgent
[17:33:57] <thiago> ok
[17:34:17] <thiago> I suggest as a goal for qmake in 6.1 that it be moved off of qtbase entirely, into a separate module
[17:34:31] <lars> I wouldn't mind :)
[17:35:06] <lars> we need some infrastructure in qtbase though. cmake has to generagte some files qmake needs
[17:35:29] <lars> (which it already does)
[17:36:00] <thiago> ah, ok
[17:36:08] <thiago> well, we'll see that later
[17:37:01] <jaheikki3> OK, I think that was all about Qt6 at this time. Then Qt 5.15.1 status
[17:37:02] <lars> yes
[17:37:22] <jaheikki3> New snapshot published last week
[17:37:36] <jaheikki3> Release content is almost in place
[17:37:44] <jaheikki3> all known release blockers fixed (blocker list here: https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=22356)
[17:37:56] <jaheikki3> only few changes file still under work, see https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/message:%2522Add+changes+file+for+Qt+5.15.1%2522+status:open+branch:5.15.1
[17:38:35] <jaheikki3> Target is to get those in & create release packages for final testing during this week
[17:38:45] <thiago> good
[17:38:51] <lars> sounds good
[17:38:55] <thiago> I see quite a few things in other projects pending 5.15.1
[17:39:06] <jaheikki3> & publish Qt 5.15.1 at the beginning of next week if no new blockers reported
[17:40:22] <jaheikki3> This was all about 5.15.1. Any more comments or questions?
[17:40:54] <lars> no, let's hope we get the release out next week, so the team can focus on Qt6 Alpha packages
[17:41:32] <jaheikki3> Yes, agree
[17:42:07] <jaheikki3> It was all at this time. Let's end this meeting now & have next one Tue 8th September as planned
[17:42:17] <jaheikki3> Thanks for your participation, bye!
[17:42:24] <lars> pl. Thanks Jani!
[17:42:26] <lars> ok