Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 9 February 2018 at 15:54, Lars Knoll wrote: >> On 9 Feb 2018, at 07:52, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> >> André Pönitz wrote: >>> I think you need to start differentiating between Qt-without-Webengine >>> and QtWebengine. >>> >>> And maybe "we" should do

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 9 February 2018 at 20:46, Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> But I am asking to do a minimal investigation. In most cases of blacklisting, >> the test has been failing for days, if not months. Spending an hour or two to >> understand why it's failing and whether it's

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 9 February 2018 at 20:39, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Friday, 9 February 2018 08:32:20 PST Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> On 9 February 2018 at 18:17, Thiago Macieira > wrote: >> > We do have BLACKLISTs this time and I complain every time I

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Friday, 9 February 2018 08:32:20 PST Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 9 February 2018 at 18:17, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > We do have BLACKLISTs this time and I complain every time I see one being > > added without even an attempt at figuring out what's wrong with the

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 9 February 2018 at 18:17, Thiago Macieira wrote: > We do have BLACKLISTs this time and I complain every time I see one being > added without even an attempt at figuring out what's wrong with the test, or > when the match is overly aggressive ("it fails on Ubuntu in

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Friday, 9 February 2018 03:07:08 PST Olivier Goffart wrote: > > Which will happen ALL the time. We'll never get back down: when we > > released > > Qt 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, we were happy if only 10 tests failed (that only > > happened for QWS). For the other platforms, the normal number was a > >

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

09.02.2018, 16:48, "Konstantin Tokarev" : > 09.02.2018, 10:03, "Kevin Kofler" : >>  IMHO, you need to rethink your whole CI approach. This is increasingly being >>  the one bottleneck slowing down Qt development and releases. It might make >>  more

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

09.02.2018, 10:03, "Kevin Kofler" : > IMHO, you need to rethink your whole CI approach. This is increasingly being > the one bottleneck slowing down Qt development and releases. It might make > more sense to try a different approach, such as allowing all commits through >

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 9 February 2018 at 13:07, Olivier Goffart wrote: > Anyway, here is some example of models which works: > > In LLVM, devs commit directly. buildbots build the trunk continuously. In case > of failure, the buildbot maintainer quickly find out which commit likely broke > the

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:07:08PM +0100, Olivier Goffart wrote: > On other projects I've seen on github with travis and co.: the tests are run > for every pull request individually, before it is integrated. The reviewer > sees the result of the tests and decide whether to merge on not based on

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

09.02.2018, 14:07, "Olivier Goffart" : > Am Freitag, 9. Februar 2018, 08:13:01 CET schrieb Thiago Macieira: >>  On Thursday, 8 February 2018 23:02:36 PST Kevin Kofler wrote: >>  > IMHO, you need to rethink your whole CI approach. This is increasingly >>  > being the one

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Am Freitag, 9. Februar 2018, 08:13:01 CET schrieb Thiago Macieira: > On Thursday, 8 February 2018 23:02:36 PST Kevin Kofler wrote: > > IMHO, you need to rethink your whole CI approach. This is increasingly > > being the one bottleneck slowing down Qt development and releases. It > > might make

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 09/02/2018, 9.51, "Development on behalf of Lars Knoll" wrote: > On 9 Feb 2018, at 08:13, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Thursday, 8 February 2018

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

> On 9 Feb 2018, at 07:52, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > André Pönitz wrote: >> I think you need to start differentiating between Qt-without-Webengine >> and QtWebengine. >> >> And maybe "we" should do that, too. > > I would be entirely in favor of separate (more frequent

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

> On 9 Feb 2018, at 08:13, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Thursday, 8 February 2018 23:02:36 PST Kevin Kofler wrote: >> IMHO, you need to rethink your whole CI approach. This is increasingly being >> the one bottleneck slowing down Qt development and releases. It

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Thursday, 8 February 2018 23:02:36 PST Kevin Kofler wrote: > IMHO, you need to rethink your whole CI approach. This is increasingly being > the one bottleneck slowing down Qt development and releases. It might make > more sense to try a different approach, such as allowing all commits > through

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Lars Knoll wrote: > One thing we’re doing currently is adding more capacity to CI. This has > been a bottleneck that was slowing down merges and qt5.git updates. Better > capacity should be in place in early spring. (Disclaimer: The following proposal may sound "insane" to you. I also do not

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

André Pönitz wrote: > I think you need to start differentiating between Qt-without-Webengine > and QtWebengine. > > And maybe "we" should do that, too. I would be entirely in favor of separate (more frequent and/or more aligned with Chromium security fixes) QtWebEngine releases. I am already

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:32:25AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Lars Knoll wrote: > > * Instead we put our focus on getting 5.11 out as quickly as we can. Let’s > > branch now, create first alpha and then beta packages as quickly as > > possible. Not having to merge from 5.10 will ease this

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

08.02.2018, 11:17, "Lars Knoll" : >>  On 8 Feb 2018, at 08:35, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> >>  On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 19:32:25 PST Kevin Kofler wrote: >>>  We are now in early February. By your schedule, 5.11 will be out on the >>> last >>>  

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 08:35, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 19:32:25 PST Kevin Kofler wrote: >> We are now in early February. By your schedule, 5.11 will be out on the last >> day of May. That's a whopping 4 months without a Qt release from the

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 19:32:25 PST Kevin Kofler wrote: > We are now in early February. By your schedule, 5.11 will be out on the last > day of May. That's a whopping 4 months without a Qt release from the > current (non-LTS) branch! In that time, at least 2 batches of Chromium > security

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Lars Knoll wrote: > * Instead we put our focus on getting 5.11 out as quickly as we can. Let’s > branch now, create first alpha and then beta packages as quickly as > possible. Not having to merge from 5.10 will ease this significantly. > Getting 5.11 out quick will hopefully also make Webengine

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

5, 2018 12:35 PM To: Qt development mailing list Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those Hi all, Sorry for being a bit late with answering to this thread. Been first traveling and then was down with a flu last week. Unfortunately, none of the opti

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi all, Sorry for being a bit late with answering to this thread. Been first traveling and then was down with a flu last week. Unfortunately, none of the options on the table will be 100% satisfying to everybody. This is basically because we have limits on how much work we can or should be

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi all, Sorry for being a bit late with answering to this thread. Been first traveling and then was down with a flu last week. Unfortunately, none of the options on the table will be 100% satisfying to everybody. This is basically because we have limits on how much work we can or should be

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Montag, 29. Januar 2018 14:40:20 CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > > I don't agree, 5.10 releases should be done on a regular basis until > > 5.11.1 is out (Yes, .1, many users don't upgrade to .0 versions...) > > +1, I also agree with you and therefore disagree with the

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Tuukka Turunen (1 February 2018 16:22) > I think keeping 5.9 open a bit longer has benefit due to it being an > LTS. The benefit looks small, to me. If I have to cherry-pick back to LTS, it's for an important issue; I've just done that for QTBUG-66076 because it got reported against 5.9.4, after

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Tuukka Turunen wrote: > Of those 2a and 2b sound the best to me, however we should be able to make > 5.10.2 at least in case needed on top of 5.10.1 with a critical security > fix (or similar). You are talking about needing maybe one security fix. I can tell you that it is practically certain

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi, Of those 2a and 2b sound the best to me, however we should be able to make 5.10.2 at least in case needed on top of 5.10.1 with a critical security fix (or similar). I think keeping 5.9 open a bit longer has benefit due to it being an LTS. It adds a bit merge effort, but should be

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:35:58PM +0100, Tuukka Turunen wrote: > So based on this Qt 5.9 should be in cherry pick mode next week. With > previous wording it should have been in cherry pick mode from 2.9.2017 > onwards, which was way too soon (hence the change to QUIP5). > right. > What about Qt

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi, To be clear, the updated QUIP5 (http://code.qt.io/cgit/meta/quips.git/tree/quip-0005.rst) says: "*strict* This period starts when the one after next stable branch is created (for the 5.9 LTS, the one after next is 5.11). Submitting to the LTS branch directly is then no longer

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

01.02.2018, 14:19, "Oswald Buddenhagen" : > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:38:29PM +, Tuukka Turunen wrote: >>  The item that has received comments both in favor and against is what >>  to do with 5.10 now. I think that instead of closing 5.10, we could >>  move it to

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:38:29PM +, Tuukka Turunen wrote: > The item that has received comments both in favor and against is what > to do with 5.10 now. I think that instead of closing 5.10, we could > move it to cherry pick mode, just like Qt 5.9 is. That allows putting > the necessary

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

ubject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those The item that has received comments both in favor and against is what to do with 5.10 now. I think that instead of closing 5.10, we could move it to cherry pick mode, just like Qt 5.9 is. That allows putting the neces

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io@qt- > project.org] On Behalf Of Tuukka Turunen > Sent: tiistai 30. tammikuuta 2018 23.38 > To: Konrad Rosenbaum <kon...@silmor.de>; development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Jani Heikkinen wrote: > I have to disagree there: We have already released 4 patch level releases > for LTS 5.9 so it is actually moving quite fast. That is not what I meant with fast-moving! Those LTS patch releases by design do not provide the new features that the releases from higher

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi, What Keven wrote below is absolutely true. Within the one million users of Qt we really have an extremely wide variety of different needs. Also in this discussion, there has been quite a versatile set of opinions stated, which is very good. There has been some suggestions to even not

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Tue, January 30, 2018 00:18, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I would on the contrary expect users to want new features sooner rather > than > later, [...] Please keep in mind that there are several classes of Qt users: Mobile: moving fast and furious. Depend on novelty. General Desktop: moving

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt.io@qt- > project.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Kofler > Sent: maanantai 29. tammikuuta 2018 15.33 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On segunda-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2018 21:57:38 PST Tuukka Turunen wrote: > Hi, > > This is not an either-or thing. Of course both having new feature releases > and stable LTS are important. I am not claiming otherwise. My point is that > there are more users for the LTS versions, thus I used

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi, This is not an either-or thing. Of course both having new feature releases and stable LTS are important. I am not claiming otherwise. My point is that there are more users for the LTS versions, thus I used the expression. There are a lot of users for both, we do not need to have a poll to

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Tuukka Turunen wrote: > Users prefer LTS releases According to what statistics? Also keep in mind that distributions will download Qt once and redistribute it to thousands of users. And also that there are 2 classes of Qt users: application developers and end users. Such a bold claim really

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi, To comment a bit this discussion, I think that with Qt 5.10 as the first release after the LTS it might be fine to stop after .1, but in general I would not want to set such a rule. To me the question at hand is should we skip Qt 5.10.2 release if that means we can put more fixes into Qt

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > Note that you can build newer QtWebEngine releases against LTS Qt I know, and I am already doing this, but this does not help if there is no newer QtWebEngine release to begin with! Even taking a snapshot is typically not an option because security fixes are only

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On segunda-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2018 04:10:02 PST Adam Treat wrote: > “stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not LTS.” > > +1 So long as we "stop after the .1" Just look at how many distributions skipped 5.8 entirely because it didn't have a .1. That was a huge mistake on

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

29.01.2018, 16:33, "Kevin Kofler" : > Simon Hausmann wrote: >>  In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches >>  open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not >>  LTS. > > -1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 02:32:58PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Simon Hausmann wrote: > > In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches > > open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not > > LTS. > > -1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:31:14 +0100 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > On 29/01/18 07:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote: > > We have currently really many branches open: > > - 5.6 > > - 5.9 > > - 5.10 > > - 5.10.1 > > - 5.11 > > - dev > > > > In my opinion this is too much to handle

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > I don't agree, 5.10 releases should be done on a regular basis until > 5.11.1 is out (Yes, .1, many users don't upgrade to .0 versions...) +1, I also agree with you and therefore disagree with the original proposal. Especially security warrants always having one

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Simon Hausmann wrote: > In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches > open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not > LTS. -1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS just does not fit together with fast-moving distributions, and we really

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

nt] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those 29.01.2018, 11:16, "Simon Hausmann" <simon.hausm...@qt.io>: > Hi, > > I feel that we are generally guiding our users towards the LTS releases. The > minor releases appear to address in particular users who need

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

29.01.2018, 11:16, "Simon Hausmann" : > Hi, > > I feel that we are generally guiding our users towards the LTS releases. The > minor releases appear to address in particular users who need a particular > feature before it hits the next LTS release. > > In the light of

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi, As long as we don't have enough time fix all the problems in a non LTS release, I think releasing at least one patch version is not that bad ... Yours, BogDan. În ziua de luni, 29 ianuarie 2018, la 10:15:51 EET, Simon Hausmann a scris: > Hi, > > > I feel that we are generally guiding

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

“stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not LTS.” +1 _ From: Simon Hausmann <simon.hausm...@qt.io> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 3:16 AM Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those To: Jani Heikkinen &l

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 29/01/18 07:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote: > We have currently really many branches open: > - 5.6 > - 5.9 > - 5.10 > - 5.10.1 > - 5.11 > - dev > > In my opinion this is too much to handle effectively, especially because > there is many branches in stable mode (see >

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:59:06 +, Jani Heikkinen wrote: > - '5.6' will move in 'very strict' mode - '5.9' will move in 'strict' > mode. This type of discussion has to be lead, before making a LTS promise ! Trying to change this later - without having any argument beside, that maintaining

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

Hi, I feel that we are generally guiding our users towards the LTS releases. The minor releases appear to address in particular users who need a particular feature before it hits the next LTS release. In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches open longer and

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 29 January 2018 at 10:06, Jani Heikkinen wrote: >> On 29 January 2018 at 08:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote: >> > - '5.6' will move in 'very strict' mode >> > - '5.9' will move in 'strict' mode. So no direct submissions anymore, >> > just cherry picks from

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

> -Original Message- > From: Ville Voutilainen [mailto:ville.voutilai...@gmail.com] > Sent: maanantai 29. tammikuuta 2018 9.50 > To: Jani Heikkinen <jani.heikki...@qt.io> > Cc: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposa

Re: [Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those

On 29 January 2018 at 08:59, Jani Heikkinen wrote: > - '5.6' will move in 'very strict' mode > - '5.9' will move in 'strict' mode. So no direct submissions anymore, just > cherry picks from stable > - '5.10' will be closed and Qt 5.10.1 will be the final release from Qt