> On 01 Mar 2017, at 08:58, Lars Knoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > sorry for answering only now to this thread, I was on vacation last week. > > Let’s conclude this topic now by moving on towards 5.9 as Tuukka proposed. > After some thinking I also agree that this is the best course of action from > where we are right now.
This also implies that bug fixes should now get pushed to the 5.9 branch and we should close the 5.8 branch soon. Cheers, Lars > > This is certainly not a great solution, ideally we should have the capability > of making both 5.9 in time and push out 5.8 and 5.6 patch level releases. > This is currently not working and I’ll be following up on this. My goal is to > make sure we identify all the issues in our current release infrastructure, > fix at least the worst things that make creating patch level releases > difficult until 5.9, and have a clear roadmap for the remaining items. I > really don’t want this to happen again. > > The other thing I’ll take from this is to have another look at the > interaction between TQtC and the Qt project. I do see a conflict here in how > we handle the release planning between the Company and the Project, and we’ll > need to find a better (or more clearly defined and agreed) way on how we > jointly create the release roadmap. > > Cheers, > Lars > >> On 20 Feb 2017, at 13:56, Tuukka Turunen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 18/02/2017, 21.40, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" >>> <[email protected] on behalf of >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On sábado, 18 de fevereiro de 2017 12:11:53 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote: >>>> On 18 February 2017 at 19:13, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> >>>> My point was that this decision happened already on 29 November. That was >>>> the original planned release date for 5.8.0, and also the day on which the >>>> 5.9.0 initial schedule was set. Could it have been predicted at that time >>>> what the consequences might be for 5.8.1? >>> >>> Hindsight is 20/20. Let's not rehash coulda-woulda-shoulda. >>> >>> The question is only what to do now. >> >> What I hope we can do is to have everyone helping to get Qt 5.9.0 out as >> soon as possible and then make also 5.9.1 soon (although I think we do need >> to make 5.6.3 in between). >> >> If we can have the extra help proposed by KDAB and others in the community >> for making Qt 5.8.1 release geared towards making Qt 5.9 we will be able to >> make it faster and with higher quality than otherwise possible. >> >> One concrete item is manual testing of our various snapshots. The sooner >> these are fully tested, the better. We have CI and RTA test automation, but >> these do not cover every aspect. Manual testing is needed as well. Often it >> is a case that a bug is found in quite late release steps, but has actually >> been there for some time already. Another way to help is making good bug >> reports that are also notified to the release team. The better the >> description of the issue, the easier it is to fix it. Third item is of >> course fixing things quickly – by having more people fixing the issues >> identified we will be able to close them sooner and thus proceed faster. >> >> For the CI stability most important thing is to reduce the amount of flaky >> test cases, which cause failures in CI runs. This in turn both adds delay as >> well as increases the load of the CI. >> >> Yours, >> >> Tuukka >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
