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.solo...@qt.io> > Sent: keskiviikko 7. kesäkuuta 2023 9.13 > To: releasing@qt-project.org; developm...@qt-project.org; Jani Heikkinen > <jani.heikki...@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.solo...@qt.io <mailto:ivan.solo...@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-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of > Jani Heikkinen via Development <developm...@qt-project.org> > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:20 AM > To: releasing@qt-project.org <releasing@qt-project.org>; development@qt- > project.org <developm...@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 inter...@qt-project.org > <mailto:inter...@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 _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list Releasing@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/releasing
