Releasing beta more frequently is a welcomed item, for sure. However, that implies that there is even more packages to test and what has not been discussed is the fact that there are not more people testing.
For WinRT the situation has been that Olli and I needed to test winrt/winphone-(arm/x64)-msvc(2013/2015), and that at least once per week. As you can imagine, if you go through the testing matrix properly that's around half a day for one package with multiple packages per person. There is not much time left to do development and bug fixing. For other platform teams the situation is the same. This has the effect that you start to be more "flexible" in what you test and hence it is way easier for a bug to slip through. Certainly we want to avoid that, but have not tackled any way to do so. I remember that others volunteered to help with package testing. That surely would be welcomed, but also given the fact that Jani sends out testing requests fairly often and the response rate is zero / nada / null / nil since years, I doubt that will change as well. Preferrably I'd not like to spend again 50%+ of my time testing packages until summer, or even more once the 5.8.1 discussion comes up again. Maurice > -----Original Message----- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+maurice.kalinowski=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Jani > Heikkinen > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:48 AM > To: Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io>; Alex Blasche <alexander.blas...@qt.io> > Cc: Qt development mailing list <development@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io@qt- > > project.org] On Behalf Of Lars Knoll > > Sent: tiistaina 28. maaliskuuta 2017 9.33 > > To: Alex Blasche <alexander.blas...@qt.io> > > Cc: Qt development mailing list <development@qt-project.org> > > Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate > > process > > > > > > > On 28 Mar 2017, at 08:09, Alex Blasche <alexander.blas...@qt.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> Sounds good, but please remember we'll need to keep at least the > > >>> source tarballs for each and every beta and RC that we release. > > >> > > >> Yeah, that's OK > > > > > > This implies that the user can identify the exact tag or version > > > (aka beta 5) > > somewhere in the installer. Each bug report has to state this value. > > > > Yes, either through a number or (preferable IMO) by simply putting the > > sha1 of qt5.git into a visible place. > > We were planning to use Beta N in installer UI as well as git tags. should be > ok > and it is following current ways of working > > br, > Jani > > > > > > Cheers, > > Lars > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Development mailing list > > Development@qt-project.org > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
