Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, You're right. I think to the users that want to try out a development branch that is an important difference. I hope to the developers of Qt it is not something that prevents them from developing though - the context being whether the question which branch to use as basis for development.

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On terça-feira, 11 de abril de 2017 10:49:41 PDT Simon Hausmann wrote: > Hi, > > The 5.9 beta has passed at least RTA. The 5.8.0 tag has as well as public > release testing, the 5.8 branch has passed none of it. True, but the 5.8 branch only has bugfixes on top of a released tag, whereas the

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:27 PM, Simon Hausmann wrote: > How do you define "stable"? I appreciate the value of CI, including the value of CI against the entire set of modules, not just the modules in isolation. At the same time, another important measure of stability is "burn-in", i.e.,

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, The 5.9 beta has passed at least RTA. The 5.8.0 tag has as well as public release testing, the 5.8 branch has passed none of it. Simon > On 11. Apr 2017, at 19:47, Thiago Macieira wrote: > >> Em terça-feira, 11 de abril de 2017, às 09:27:15 PDT, Simon Hausmann

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Em terça-feira, 11 de abril de 2017, às 09:27:15 PDT, Simon Hausmann escreveu: > The best criteria I have to offer at this point is a pass of all tests of > all modules in a combination. That is a qt5 build and that is why it is - > by the metric of test failures - more stable at the untested

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:14 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote: > > I think that what you are asking for is reasonable. I think the set of > > sha1s of qt5.git satisfy that requirement to the best of the project's > > ability. > >

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, How do you define "stable"? The best criteria I have to offer at this point is a pass of all tests of all modules in a combination. That is a qt5 build and that is why it is - by the metric of test failures - more stable at the untested combination of branch tips of the modules. That is

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:14 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote: > I think that what you are asking for is reasonable. I think the set of sha1s > of qt5.git satisfy that requirement to the best of the project's ability. In this case I think they do not, based on all of the commits to the 5.8 branches

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Em terça-feira, 11 de abril de 2017, às 00:30:51 PDT, Marc Mutz escreveu: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > > There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I > > think > > the two ones below sum it up quite well. > > They sum up *your* POV well. But

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, I think that what you are asking for is reasonable. I think the set of sha1s of qt5.git satisfy that requirement to the best of the project's ability. Why would the tip of the 5.8 branch of all modules be superior to for example the sha1s of qt5's 5.9 branch at this point? For users of

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

> On 4/11/17, 9:49 AM, "Development on behalf of Tuukka Turunen" > wrote: > Now that there are no patch releases planned, the benefit from pushing to 5.8 > then merging to 5.9 does not exist. I feel there should always be a stable HEAD that you can push a fix to and

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

> On 11/04/2017, 16.09, "Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)" wrote: > > > On 4/11/17, 7:36 AM, "Development on behalf of Tuukka Turunen" > > wrote: > > every fix that would have been part of 5.8.1 and more – a lot more. > >The reason for pushing to the

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt- > project.org] On Behalf Of Marc Mutz > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:25 PM > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch > releases

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

> On 4/11/17, 7:36 AM, "Development on behalf of Tuukka Turunen" > wrote: > every fix that would have been part of 5.8.1 and more – a lot more. The reason for pushing to the 5.8 branch is because it *is* stable. And since it has "... a lot more", the 5.9 branch is not

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

11.04.2017, 15:45, "Ville Voutilainen" : > On 11 April 2017 at 15:16, Marc Mutz wrote: >>  On Tuesday 11 April 2017 13:49:01 Ville Voutilainen wrote: >>>  You say we discourage cherry-picking. Why? Is that not a fairly >>>  natural way to

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On 11 April 2017 at 15:16, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 13:49:01 Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> You say we discourage cherry-picking. Why? Is that not a fairly >> natural way to backport >> bugfixes from a bleeding-edge branch to a stabler branch? > > Afaict, it's

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 13:52:36 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > > On 11/04/2017, 14.43, "Konstantin Tokarev" wrote: > > Maybe it's plausible to make 5.8.1 release just for QtBase? > > No. That is not possible. This has also been discussed before. Yes, it is possible, you've done

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 13:49:01 Ville Voutilainen wrote: > You say we discourage cherry-picking. Why? Is that not a fairly > natural way to backport > bugfixes from a bleeding-edge branch to a stabler branch? Afaict, it's because it's against the workflow of the RCS. Are you proposing a

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

> On 11/04/2017, 14.43, "Konstantin Tokarev" wrote: > > Maybe it's plausible to make 5.8.1 release just for QtBase? No. That is not possible. This has also been discussed before. There is still a lot of work left to do for getting Qt 5.9 ready. That is what we should

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On 11 April 2017 at 12:14, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:34:20 Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> To elaborate: I run a bleeding-edge compiler. It feels odd to me that >> the best branch to run it on >> is a non-bleeding-edge branch, it's quite the opposite. > > I

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

11.04.2017, 14:37, "Tuukka Turunen" : > Hi, > > We have discussed this already multiple times and it is well known by > everyone. Closing of the branch has been clearly decided, only item open has > been the time. Now that we have 5.9 beta released, I think it clearly is

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, We have discussed this already multiple times and it is well known by everyone. Closing of the branch has been clearly decided, only item open has been the time. Now that we have 5.9 beta released, I think it clearly is the time to close 5.8 and fully focus into making Qt 5.9 good. The

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Il 11/04/2017 12:46, Aleix Pol ha scritto: > What's the point of keeping 5.8 open if there's not going to be > another 5.8 release? Because of customer projects, Linux distributions, etc. that are currently on 5.8, and that want to benefit from the latest bug fixes and performance improvements

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

11.04.2017, 11:56, "Ville Voutilainen" : > On 11 April 2017 at 11:47, Tuukka Turunen wrote: >>  Hi Marc, >> >>  I can understand your viewpoint, but unfortunately keeping 5.8 open does >> cause additional load to the systems as well as people.

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: >> There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I think >> the two ones below sum it up quite well. > > They sum up *your* POV well. But up to a

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 11:08:49 Liang Qi wrote: > On 11 April 2017 at 09:30, Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > > > There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I > > > > think > > > > > the two ones below

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, No-one should be pushing to 5.8 any more, but I know that some still do. Closing 5.8 means it is easier to push to the right branch. We have talked this already many times over. Keeping 5.8 open brings little value, but causes load to machines, additional work for people and delay in

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, "In January, TQC promised to increase the CI capacity. It's now three months later and you still use the same argument? " Let's be very clear: The promise for increased capacity was for H1. http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2017-February/028757.html We are working on

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 11:14:59 Marc Mutz wrote: > I see lots of advantages to keeping 5.8 open, but as usual, you will > counter them with "CI is overloaded" and that'll be the end of the > discussion. In January, TQC promised to increase the CI capacity. It's now > three months later and you

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:34:20 Ville Voutilainen wrote: > To elaborate: I run a bleeding-edge compiler. It feels odd to me that > the best branch to run it on > is a non-bleeding-edge branch, it's quite the opposite. I know GCC works differently, probably because you use a RCS that sucks at

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:47:52 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > Can you explain why you can not push your Qt Base changes to 5.9 like > ~everyone else? Because, at least in QtBase, everyone is pushing fixes to 5.8? You saw Thiago's stats. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz | Senior

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On 11 April 2017 at 10:22, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 11 April 2017 at 10:30, Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > >> There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I > think > >>

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On 11 April 2017 at 09:30, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > > There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I > think > > the two ones below sum it up quite well. > > .. > > You can close 5.8 on all other

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi, When closing a branch we'll always do the merge. So closing 5.8 will be followed by a last 5.8 -> 5.9 merge for sure. For qt5.git Liang has already done that, for Simon From: Development on

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On 11 April 2017 at 11:47, Tuukka Turunen wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > I can understand your viewpoint, but unfortunately keeping 5.8 open does > cause additional load to the systems as well as people. It would be great if > you would rather focus into improving Qt 5.9 and

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

Hi Marc, I can understand your viewpoint, but unfortunately keeping 5.8 open does cause additional load to the systems as well as people. It would be great if you would rather focus into improving Qt 5.9 and making it good for our users than pushing stuff into a branch that has no further

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On 11 April 2017 at 11:22, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 11 April 2017 at 10:30, Marc Mutz wrote: >> On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: >>> There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I think >>> the

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On 11 April 2017 at 10:30, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: >> There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I think >> the two ones below sum it up quite well. > > They sum up *your* POV well. But up to a few

Re: [Development] Focusing bug fixes to 5.9 branch and patch releases during H1/17

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:49:28 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > There has been a lot of discussion about this in the mailing lists, I think > the two ones below sum it up quite well. They sum up *your* POV well. But up to a few weeks ago, more fixes went into 5.8 QtBase than changes into 5.9, even

Re: [Development] Passing QSize, QPoint, QTime and other small structs by value

On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:36:52 Thiago Macieira wrote: > Em segunda-feira, 10 de abril de 2017, às 13:27:05 PDT, Matthew Woehlke > > escreveu: > > Option 2: Teach C++ to choose automatically if such types should be > > passed by value or by const-reference. > > That's what I did to QVector. >