[Releasing] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 06.06.2023

Wed Jun 7 10:50:55 CEST 2023

Hi!

Yes, that's true. Sorry for confusion!

So once again:
3 Qt 6.6 FF exception requests so far:
* container-assign epic: exception request accepted
* C++20 comparison: exception request rejected
* QMultiMap/Hash support in Qvariant: exception request rejected

br,
Jani Heikkinen
Release manager

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Solovev <ivan.solovev at qt.io>
> Sent: keskiviikko 7. kesäkuuta 2023 9.13
> To: releasing at qt-project.org; development at qt-project.org; Jani Heikkinen
> <jani.heikkinen at qt.io>
> Subject: Re: Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 06.06.2023
> 
> Hi Jani,
> 
> > 3 exception requests so far:
> >      - C++20 comparison: exception request accepted
> >      - container-assign epic: exception request rejected
> 
> 
> I think it's the other way around - the container-assign epic is accepted, and
> the C++20 comparison is rejected.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Ivan
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Ivan Solovev
> 
> Senior Software Engineer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Qt Company GmbH
> Erich-Thilo-Str. 10
> 12489 Berlin, Germany
> 
> ivan.solovev at qt.io <mailto:ivan.solovev at qt.io>
> 
> www.qt.io <https://www.qt.io>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi,
> Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin,
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht
> Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of
> Jani Heikkinen via Development <development at qt-project.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:20 AM
> To: releasing at qt-project.org <releasing at qt-project.org>; development at qt-
> project.org <development at qt-project.org>
> Subject: [Development] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting
> 06.06.2023
> 
> 
> Qt 6.5 status
> 
> *	Qt 6.5.2 preparations started
> 
> 	*	First internal snapshot created and tested
> 	*	Target is to branch from '6.5' to '6.5.2' Wed 14th
> June
> 	*	Target is to release Qt 6.5.2 Wed 28th June
> 
> Qt 6.6 status
> 
> *	Qt 6.6 Feature Freeze in effect now & branching from 'dev' to
> '6.6' done
> 
> 	*	3 exception requests so far:
> 
> 		*	C++20 comparison: exception
> request accepted
> 		*	container-assign epic: exception
> request rejected
> 		*	QMultiMap/Hash support in
> Qvariant: exception request rejected
> 
> *	API change review started
> 
> 	*	Most of diffs already available, see
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-114214
> 	*	Official review call will be sent to dev ML later
> this week
> 
> *	Target is to release Qt 6.6 Beta1 immediately after dependency
> update round succeed in '6.6'
> 
> 
> 
> Next meeting Tue 13th June 16:00 CET
> 
> 
> 
> br,
> 
> Jani Heikkinen
> 
> Release Manager
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irc log below
> 
> [17:00:13] <+jaheikki3> ablasche: akseli: carewolf_home: lars_:mapaaso:
> The-Compiler:thiago:vohi: ping
> 
> [17:00:23] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
> 
> [17:00:24] <carewolf_home> pong
> 
> [17:00:26] <vohi> pong
> 
> [17:00:35] <frkleint> pong
> 
> [17:00:37] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
> 
> [17:01:17] <+jaheikki3> time to start qt release team meeting
> 
> [17:01:23] <+jaheikki3> on agenda today:
> 
> [17:01:29] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.5 status
> 
> [17:01:33] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.6 status
> 
> [17:01:42] <+jaheikki3> Any additional item to the agenda?
> 
> [17:01:57] <vohi> Lets discuss the requested exceptions from Qt 6.6 feature
> freeze
> 
> [17:02:54] <vohi> (as part of the Qt 6.6 status)
> 
> [17:03:06] <+jaheikki3> vohi: Yes, agree
> 
> [17:03:19] <+jaheikki3> But let's start from Qt 6.5 status
> 
> [17:03:36] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.5.2 preparations started
> 
> [17:03:54] <+jaheikki3> First snapshot created and tested
> 
> [17:04:13] <+jaheikki3> Target is to release Qt 6.5.2 Wed 28th June
> 
> [17:04:36] <+jaheikki3> So branching from '6.5' to '6.5.2' will happen Wed
> 14th June
> 
> [17:05:00] <+jaheikki3> that's all about Qt 6.5 status. Any comments or
> questions?
> 
> [17:06:27] <thiago> none
> 
> [17:06:48] <+jaheikki3> Ok, then Qt 6.6 status
> 
> [17:07:02] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.6 Feature Freeze is in effect now
> 
> [17:07:13] <+jaheikki3> 3 Exception requests so far:
> 
> [17:07:33] <+jaheikki3> C++20 comparison, container-assign epic &
> QMultiMap/Hash support in Qvariant
> 
> [17:07:42] <+jaheikki3> vohi:
> 
> [17:08:01] <vohi> container-assign seems pretty clear cut.
> 
> [17:08:07] <thiago> greed
> 
> [17:08:09] <thiago> agreed
> 
> [17:09:28] <vohi> THe C++20 comparison less so, obviously. The discussion
> with Ivan has confirmed that this isn't needed for Qt 6.6, and given that the
> header review process has started, I don't quite see why we need to make an
> exception here. I respect that a lot of thought and work has gone into the
> implementation of course.
> 
> [17:11:21] <vohi> Since we won't make C++20 a requirement for Qt 6.6, and
> generally don't plan to make C++20 support on any level a part of the launch
> communication, I'm not quite seeing why we need to make an exception. The
> scope of what has been done is small, and I somewhat share Thiago's
> concern that maybe it's too small for us to see all the corner cases.
> 
> [17:13:14] <+jaheikki3> I understand and agree; we shouldn't make an
> exception for this because it isn't needed nesessarily for Qt 6.6
> 
> [17:14:03] <+jaheikki3> Any objections?
> 
> [17:14:27] <carewolf_home> no
> 
> [17:14:32] <vohi> Alex is right in saying that we don't need to roll this out
> across all relevant types in all submodules, but a bit more than the two or
> three cases in Qt Core alone wouldn't hurt.
> 
> [17:15:36] <thiago> I think we need as a validation that it works
> 
> [17:15:53] <thiago> he has 5 types currently (the 4 date/time types and
> qfloat16)
> 
> [17:17:26] <+jaheikki3> It seems we agree no exception for the C++20
> comparison
> 
> [17:17:44] <+jaheikki3> vohi: what about the last one (QMultiMap/Hash
> support in Qvariant)?
> 
> [17:18:17] <carewolf_home> is there a timeframe mentioned?
> 
> [17:19:20] <vohi> no; Peppe doesn't know how to continue based on
> Thiago's input, so it's a bit open
> 
> [17:20:11] <vohi> We changed behavior, unintentionally perhaps, from Qt 5
> to Qt 6 by making QMultiMap no longer a QMap subclass (ditto QHash)
> 
> [17:20:56] <vohi> but since no API in Qt uses QVariantMap/Hash as a multi-
> map/hash, it's gone unnoticed. At least I assume that Peppe's motivation to
> bring them back is the respective question on interest at qt-project.org
> <mailto:interest at qt-project.org>
> 
> [17:21:16] <vohi> (https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2023-
> April/039055.html <https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2023-
> April/039055.html>
> 
> [17:21:52] <carewolf_home> with out a plan I would lean towards no, it has
> been broken for a long time so 6.6 vs 6.7 doesn't make much difference
> 
> [17:22:26] <vohi> we should perhaps establish first that we need those types
> to be built-in types in Qt at all; we don't use them in Qt ourselves
> 
> [17:23:16] <thiago> I don't think it makes a difference if it gets fixed in 6.6 or
> 6.7
> 
> [17:23:23] <thiago> it's been 3+ years since 6.0 anyway
> 
> [17:23:27] <carewolf_home> they not used when converting json objects to
> qtdeclarative types?
> 
> [17:23:44] <+jaheikki3> I agree with carewolf_home and thiago: there
> shouldn't be that hurry with this and on the other hand there is still issues to
> be solved
> 
> [17:23:54] <thiago> carewolf_home: not the multi types, no
> 
> [17:25:07] <carewolf_home> right, no use as multi maps
> 
> [17:25:23] <thiago> I don't even remember what the issues I had with the
> patch were
> 
> [17:25:55] <+jaheikki3> It seems no exception for QMultiMap/Hash support
> in Qvariant either
> 
> [17:26:27] <+jaheikki3> vohi: do you know any other exception requests or
> was these 3 all so far?
> 
> [17:26:48] <vohi> those are the three I have seen, nothing out-of-band has
> reached my inbox
> 
> [17:27:12] <+jaheikki3> ok, then all request have handled now
> 
> [17:27:18] <vohi> and agree with leaving the MultiHash/Map for Qt 6.7, but
> would be good if @thiago could give Peppe some assistance
> 
> [17:28:19] <vohi> as for process: let's review any exception requests in this
> meeting once a week
> 
> [17:28:45] <+jaheikki3> Yeah, ok for me
> 
> [17:28:52] <frkleint> vohi: Have you had a look at QtGraphs? Are we happy
> with that (it being based on QuickWidget, data APIs)
> 
> [17:29:14] <thiago> will do
> 
> [17:30:05] <vohi> @frkleint: it's not been a priority for me, given that it's
> going out as tech preview at this point; I hopefully get to it next week when I
> have some face-to-face time with the team working on it
> 
> [17:30:23] <frkleint> Aha, cool thanks. Good to hear
> 
> [17:31:11] <+jaheikki3> Ok, back to 6.6 status
> 
> [17:31:50] <+jaheikki3> Like vohi already wrote api change review process is
> already ongoing, see https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-114214
> 
> [17:32:18] <+jaheikki3> Official review call will be sent to dev ML later this
> week after I managed to add missing QML ones as well
> 
> [17:33:08] <+jaheikki3> Dependency update round in '6.6' is also ongoing and
> the target is to release Qt 6.6 Beta1 immediately after it succeed
> 
> [17:33:33] <+jaheikki3> That's all about Qt 6.6 status at this time. Any
> comments or questions?
> 
> [17:35:58] <+jaheikki3> It was all at this time so let's end this meeting now
> and have new one tue 13th June at this same time
> 
> [17:36:08] <+jaheikki3> Thanks for your participation, bye!
> 
> [17:36:21] <vohi> bye!
> 
> [17:36:41] <frkleint> bye
> 
> [17:36:42] <thiago> bye