Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 14th February 2017 Qt 5.9.0 Alpha status: - First snapshot available - Content wise we are really close the Alpha * Open alpha blockers in https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18348 * macOS 10.12 still missing from CI. This should be in during this week - Target to get Alpha out during next week
Next patch level releases: - The decision is that we won't release Qt 5.6.3 or Qt 5.8.1 before Qt 5.9.0 is out - Next patch release is Qt 5.6.3 * Most probably this means we won't release Qt 5.8.1 at all --> We will close '5.8' branch for now to save resources * We can open it later if needed Next meeting Tue 28th February 16:00 CET Jani Heikkinen Release Manager irc log below: [17:00:19] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: thiago: fkleint: ZapB: tronical: vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf: fregl: ablasche: joaijala: ping [17:00:24] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong [17:00:34] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong [17:01:52] <fkleint> jaheikki3: pong [17:02:01] <carewolf> pong [17:02:49] <jaheikki3> time to start qt release team meeting: [17:02:55] <jaheikki3> On agenda today: [17:03:05] <jaheikki3> - Qt 5.9.0 Alpha status [17:03:33] <jaheikki3> - Next patch level releases [17:03:41] <jaheikki3> Any additionaöl item to the agenda? [17:05:17] <jaheikki3> Ok, let's start from 5.9 alpha status [17:05:27] <jaheikki3> First snapshot available [17:06:48] <jaheikki3> content wise we should be really close to Alpha, there is only 2 open items in blocker list at the moment (https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=18348) [17:07:23] <jaheikki3> And one should be already fixed, another one will be fixed tomorrow [17:07:50] <jaheikki3> Then we are still missing macOS 10.12 for CI. That should be in during this week [17:08:24] <jaheikki3> So if nothing serious reported from current packages I think we should be able to release Alpha during next week [17:08:34] <jaheikki3> Any comments / questions? [17:09:19] <thiago> no, that should be great [17:09:24] <fkleint> no diffs for API review yet? [17:09:26] <carewolf> I noticed we now have a macOS 10.11 but it doesn't run tests, is that intentional? [17:10:34] <jaheikki3> carewolf: yes, it is intentional. There is some tests still failing for 10.11, tony is trying to get someone to check those [17:10:44] <carewolf> ok [17:10:54] <jaheikki3> but that isn't blocking the alpha but surely beta ;) [17:12:00] <jaheikki3> fkleint: Yes there is, eddy sent mail a while ago [17:12:43] <jaheikki3> fkleint: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/2017-February/004462.html [17:13:22] <fkleint> oh,aha [17:13:29] <jaheikki3> Ok that's all about 5.9 alpha at this time,let's try to get Alpha out during next week [17:13:46] <fkleint> wait. releases? It should go to development? [17:13:59] <fkleint> anyways [17:14:21] <jaheikki3> fkleint: actually true, will forward it later [17:14:33] <jaheikki3> Then next patch level releases: [17:16:11] <jaheikki3> As Tuukka informed The Qt Company has made the desicion that we won't do 5.6.3 or 5.8.1 before Qt 5.9.0 is out, see http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2017-February/028757.html [17:16:48] <jaheikki3> So we are now putting all effort to get Qt 5.9.0 out as planned & after that release Qt 5.6.3 [17:17:34] <jaheikki3> So most probably that means also that we won't do 5.8.1 at all [17:17:51] <jaheikki3> So should we start pushing fixes directly to 5.9 branch now? [17:18:16] <fkleint> Hm..this might delay things... [17:18:19] <jaheikki3> As Tuukka wrote It would reduce the workload as we do not need to first integrate changes into 5.8 and then merge upwards to 5.9. [17:18:48] <jaheikki3> Any opinion to that? [17:19:39] <fkleint> hm,ok [17:20:43] <carewolf> it opens up the question of detaching qtwebengine releases again. I would like a release every 3 months or so, just to sync up with security updates from Chrome [17:22:19] <carewolf> though in the grand scheme of things, we could let go of that too, we are already dropping a lot of other fixes [17:23:04] <jaheikki3> carewolf: I thibk this desicion is unique & we will continue to release patch level releases as earlier with 5.9 and later so could we live with that decision in QtWebeebgine as well?' [17:23:49] <carewolf> but considering 5.9 will be released before the summer and is supposed to be a small release and 5.10 is set to be a feature release with feature freeze right after summer, I doubt we will have any more time later [17:24:04] <carewolf> we much better time for point releases in the 5.9 cycle than in the 5.10 cycle [17:24:51] <carewolf> or are we expecting manpower or processing power to improve later? [17:25:44] <jaheikki3> carewolf: Yes, we should have more prosessing power & I am hoping we can reduce the flakiness from our systems now when we are heavily putting effort on it [17:25:56] <carewolf> But yes, we can live with it. It will not make users happy, but that is how it is. [17:26:06] <jaheikki3> great [17:26:23] <thiago> jaheikki3: to be clear, Tuukka made the proposal and no one disagreed [17:26:26] <thiago> then the Qt Project decided [17:27:11] <thiago> the Qt Company does not decide for the Qt Project [17:29:02] <jaheikki3> ok .. other comments or questions? [17:30:50] <peppe> thiago: I missed the part where there was an actual consensus on a proposal, but whatever... [17:30:52] <jaheikki3> And because no-one heavily disagreed to start pushing fixes directly to 5.9 branch now I propose we will close '5.9' now & open it later if needed [17:30:52] <peppe> does this mean to shut down the 5.8 branch right now, as it's pointless? [17:31:13] <jaheikki3> peppe: I just proposed it officially ;) [17:31:30] <peppe> wait, 5.8 or 5.9= [17:31:31] <jaheikki3> I meant close '5.8', not '5.9' of course [17:33:33] <akseli> +1 [17:33:46] <carewolf> I don't like it [17:34:29] <jaheikki3> carewolf: Why? [17:35:00] <carewolf> I just prefer to leave it open, but change recommendations [17:35:57] <jaheikki3> carewolf: That's ok for me as well. [17:36:42] <w00t> leaving it open (assuming this means for staging) means that staging can happen, which means that changes can risk being lost (never merged up), as well as wasting resources integrating something that will never be released. I'm not sure that makes much sense? [17:37:49] <thiago> peppe: no one discussed, so it's consensus [17:37:56] <jaheikki3> w00t: yeah, thats why I proposed closing but for me it is ok just to recommend to use '5.9' [17:40:22] <jaheikki3> thiago: any opinion? [17:40:45] <w00t> i'd go for closing it, i don't see the point of keeping it open. it's misleading at best, and harmful at worst (creating extra work in having to merge it later on) [17:41:34] <jaheikki3> I also vote closing [17:41:59] <carewolf> I preferred it open in case we discover anything that necessitates a 5.8.1 release, but yes, it would likely be a waste of resources [17:42:40] <jaheikki3> carewolf: we can reopen it if needed [17:44:34] <peppe> well, tuukka's email stated clearly that there won't be a 5.8.1 release from the 5.8 branch, but from the v5.8.0 tag [17:44:56] <thiago> I don't care [17:45:20] <thiago> that's a security release [17:45:30] <jaheikki3> It seems we agree it is better just to close the branch so let's close it & open later if needed [17:45:45] <thiago> I disagree with the solution, but I know that it's unfeasible to do otherwise [17:45:54] <thiago> so I simply don't care where we push the fixes [17:45:56] <w00t> peppe: ah, a good point, too [17:46:11] <thiago> to be clear: I think skipping 5.8.1 is a mistake [17:46:19] <peppe> me too [17:46:45] <w00t> me three - but if it's impossible (resource-wise) to release, it's impossible to release [17:46:46] <thiago> many people don't even use a .0 release, so we're looking at people upgrading from 5.7.1 to 5.9.1 [17:47:12] <carewolf> me four [17:48:37] <thiago> but I didn't reply in the ML because I don't think there's anything we can do about it [17:48:37] <jaheikki3> I understand. But decision is now done so let's follow it & make sure we don't need to do same later [17:48:49] <thiago> hence, staying out of the discussion of how to make this 5.9.0 release [17:51:00] <jaheikki3> Ok, I think this was all at this time. Let's skip next weeks meeting & have new one 28.2.2017 at this same time. Hoping alpha is out before it. [17:52:02] <thiago> ok, great [17:52:19] <jaheikki3> Thanks for your participation! [17:52:21] <jaheikki3> Happy valentine's day! Bye [17:58:21] <fkleint> bye _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
