Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 13th March 2018
- Beta 1 released ~ two weeks ago
- Beta2 content in place & packages available. If RTA indicates packages are
good enough beta2 will be released later this week
- Branching from '5.9' to '5.9.5' ongoing
* target was to finalize branching at the beginning of this week but qt5.git
integration has been failing in '5.9'.
* It just succeed so we will do final downmerge tomorrow.
- Target is to get release out during March
* Release blocker list here: https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=19230
- Release team will create initial changes files for Qt 5.9.5 immediately after
branching is finalized
Next meeting Tue 20.3.2018 16:00 CET
irc log below
[17:00:12] <jaheikki3> akseli: iieklund: thiago: fkleint: ZapB:
tronical:vladimirM: aholza: peter-h: mapaaso: ankokko: fkleint: carewolf:
[17:00:29] <fregl> hi
[17:01:06] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:40] <jaheikki3> Time to start qt release team meeting
[17:01:45] <jaheikki3> On agenda today:
[17:01:50] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.11 status
[17:01:56] <jaheikki3> Qt 5.9.5 status
[17:02:07] <jaheikki3> Any additional item to the agenda?
[17:03:53] <jaheikki3> Lets start from 5.11 status:
[17:04:03] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:04:18] <jaheikki3> beta1 released ~ two weeks ago
[17:04:29] <jaheikki3> beta2 content in place & packages created
[17:04:34] <jaheikki3> RTA ongoing
[17:04:50] <jaheikki3> If all seems to be OK we will release beta2 later this
[17:06:31] <thiago> is the API review done?
[17:06:38] <jaheikki3> thiago: ongoing
[17:06:55] <frkleint> Has the enum argument been settled?
[17:07:15] <jaheikki3> frkleint: ?
[17:07:31] <frkleint> other than that, it was ok, wasn't it (give or take qdoc
[17:07:54] <thiago> frkleint: I don't think we've had the argument
[17:07:58] <thiago> frkleint: post to the ML
[17:08:00] <frkleint> jaheikki3: during API review , there was some argument
[17:08:09] <frkleint> me?
[17:08:19] <frkleint> it was between you and peppe, mostly?
[17:08:43] <jaheikki3> frkleint: I have missed that one...
[17:08:51] <thiago> right, peppe did
[17:08:59] <thiago> there's a question whether we should use enum class instead
of plain enums
[17:09:27] <frkleint> right , or have the enum name in each value
[17:09:38] <frkleint> as settled in the current guide lines
[17:09:45] <frkleint> anyways
[17:10:10] <jaheikki3> Yeah, there is still time to finalize that before RC
[17:10:40] <frkleint> yup unless it is used all over the place in dependent
[17:11:32] <jaheikki3> true :D
[17:11:41] <jaheikki3> I think that was all about Qt 5.11 at this time
[17:11:52] <jaheikki3> Then Qt 5.9.5 status:
[17:11:52] <frkleint> what does the blocker list look like?
[17:11:57] <frkleint> size() > 5 ?
[17:12:21] <jaheikki3> Yeah, 13 atm, see
[17:12:27] <frkleint> uh
[17:12:37] <jaheikki3> That was for 5.11 RC,
[17:12:39] <jaheikki3> :D
[17:13:25] <jaheikki3> For 5.9.5 there isn't that many, only 7 open. See
[17:13:36] <carewolf> not on the blocker list are the security patches frmo
chrome 64 and 65, but we are almost done with them
[17:13:59] <carewolf> no wait it is there, at least 64 :D
[17:14:17] <jaheikki3> carewolf: Yeah, it is there
[17:14:46] <jaheikki3> And great to hear that it is almost done. I was planning
to check statuses tomorrow
[17:15:01] <jaheikki3> Branching from 5.9 -> 5.9.5 still ongoing
[17:15:31] <jaheikki3> we were waiting to get qt5.git integration through in
'5.9' before finalizing it
[17:15:49] <frkleint> with some "surprises"
[17:16:11] <jaheikki3> And it just succeed & Ossi promised to do final
[17:16:19] <jaheikki3> frkleint: What do you mean?
[17:16:38] <frkleint> the qt5.git failures in gesturemanager ,etc
[17:16:44] <frkleint> which no one had touched in years ;-)
[17:16:48] <frkleint> anywyas
[17:17:18] <jaheikki3> yeah, there has been some weird problems lately but
anyway; it finally integrates
[17:17:56] <jaheikki3> We will do initial change files for Qt 5.9.5 immediately
after final downmerge
[17:18:26] <jaheikki3> & target is still to get release out during march
[17:18:42] <frkleint> did we discuss dropping change files for LTS, since they
should be empty?
[17:19:08] <jaheikki3> ? I don't recall that kind of discussion
[17:19:23] <frkleint> hm, maybe we just discussed it here
[17:19:32] <frkleint> ok, but maybe requires broader consent
[17:19:38] <jaheikki3> frkleint: true
[17:19:46] <thiago> why should they be empty?
[17:19:54] <thiago> if we didn't have changes, we wouldn't release at all
[17:20:00] <frkleint> there shouldn;t be any changelog-worthy changes
[17:20:09] <thiago> there should be change entries
[17:20:11] <frkleint> like behavioural changes,./ featyures
[17:20:17] <frkleint> security maybe
[17:20:21] <thiago> mostly bugfixes, etc., but we should be listing those
[17:21:29] <frkleint> hm at least for 5.6 I think there is not much point in
having change files any more...
[17:23:12] <jaheikki3> Ok, I think this was all at this time. Let's have new
meeting tue 20.3 as planned
[17:23:21] <frkleint> ok
[17:23:27] <jaheikki3> Thanks for your participation
[17:23:30] <jaheikki3> Bye!
[17:23:39] <frkleint> bye
Releasing mailing list