Qt 6.8 status

  *   Qt 6.8 feature freeze is in effect
  *   Branching from 'dev' to '6.8' is done
  *   Qt 6.8 API change review is started, see 
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2024-June/045374.html
  *   Qt 6.8 Beta1 preparations are started
     *   Dependency update round in '6.8' succeed so Qt 6.8 Beta1 content 
should be in place
     *   Packaging ongoing, some updates still needed to the packaging configs 
for Qt 6.8.0
     *   Target is to release Qt 6.8 Beta1 as soon as possible, latest Thu 13th 
of June

New Qt 6.8 FF Exception requests:

     *   QtAbstractItemModel, QtModelIndex and QtAbstactListModel:
        *   Exception not needed, finishing those features by writing 
tests/documentation/examples does not require an exception
Qt 6.7 status

  *   Some quite critical regressions reported from Qt 6.7.1. Jani to check & 
decide if it is still possible to release Qt 6.7.2 by the end of June (without 
causing too much hassle with other releases etc.)

Improve release note & process

  *   Jani will sent release note review request to dev ML immediately when 
note available.

Next meeting Tue 11th of June 2024 16:00 CET
br,
Jani Heikkinen
Release Manager
irc log below:
[17:00:55] <+jaheikki3> akseli: alblasch: carewolf: frkleint: lars__:mapaaso: 
The-Compiler: thiago: vohi: ping
[17:01:03] <akseli> jaheikki3: pong
[17:01:05] <vohi> jaheikki3: pong
[17:02:04] <frkleint> jaheikki3: pong
[17:02:57] <+jaheikki3> time to start qt release team meeting
[17:03:06] <+jaheikki3> on agenda today:
[17:03:07] <thiago> jaheikki3: pong
[17:03:14] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.8 status
[17:03:27] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.8 FF exceptions
[17:03:37] <+jaheikki3> Any additional item to the agenda?
[17:04:06] <vohi> one thing to discuss, wrt the "release notes" thread on the 
mailing list: what can we improve, and avoid that we claim BC if the change log 
later on says it's not :)
[17:04:19] <vohi> (which are perhaps two things)
[17:04:53] <frkleint> is there any hope for a 6.7.1.1 release.. we have a kind 
of facepalm bug in Qt Designer ( https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-125983 )
[17:05:03] <thiago> 6.7.2
[17:05:04] <frkleint> just in case some other bug shows up../
[17:05:09] <thiago> we're not running out of numbers
[17:05:16] <+jaheikki3> vohi: maybe that's something which needs a bit longer 
discussion than this meeting
[17:06:03] <+jaheikki3> But we can start the discussion here
[17:06:29] <vohi> ack
[17:06:45] <+jaheikki3> and we can discuss about 6.7.2 plans as well
[17:07:01] <+jaheikki3> But let's start from Qt 6.8 status
[17:07:23] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.8 feature freeze is in effect now (as planned)
[17:07:42] <+jaheikki3> Branching from 'dev' to '6.8' is also done
[17:08:05] <+jaheikki3> And Qt 6.8 Beta1 preparations are started
[17:08:35] <+jaheikki3> Dependency update round in '6.8' succeed already and so 
on we should have Qt 6.8 Beta1 content is in place
[17:09:25] <+jaheikki3> Qt 6.8 Beta1 packaging ongoing but some updates still 
needed to configs before we can start testing beta1
[17:09:50] <+jaheikki3> The target is to release Qt 6.8 Beta1 as soon as 
possible, latest thu 13th of June
[17:10:18] <+jaheikki3> That's all about Qt 6.8 status at this time. Any 
comments or questions?
[17:12:34] <+jaheikki3> Ok, then new Qt 6.8 FF exceptions:
[17:12:53] <+jaheikki3> In the ML there isn't any new FF exceptions, right?
[17:13:11] <vohi> There was "Feature freeze exception: QtAbstractItemModel, 
QtModelIndex and QtAbstactListModel"
[17:13:40] <vohi> but I agree with Ulf that finishing those features by writing 
tests/documentation/examples does not require an exception
[17:13:54] <+jaheikki3> That's true and I agree
[17:14:11] <vohi> no other exception requests that I am aware of so far
[17:14:30] <+jaheikki3> In addition to that there might be the webengine one we 
shortly discussed last week, carewolf:?
[17:14:56] <+jaheikki3> (at least alblasch chatted me about that yesterday)
[17:16:41] <+jaheikki3> It seems carewolf isn't here now so I think we need to 
handle that later if needed
[17:17:01] <+jaheikki3> Then we could check Qt 6.7.2 plans
[17:17:25] <+jaheikki3> Original plan was to release Qt 6.7.2 after summer 
holidays, ~ mid August
[17:18:29] <carewolf> I am here now
[17:18:45] <carewolf> we have integrated all features we need in webengine now.
[17:19:05] <+jaheikki3> Ok, so no need for exception, great
[17:19:35] <vohi> I found three bugs reported as regressions 6.7.0 -> 6.7.1 
(https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-125858, 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-125497, and 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-125481) in addition to the Qt Designer 
bug; unclear how realistic it is to fix all of them so quickly that a 6.7.2 
before summer break is realistic though
[17:20:43] <+jaheikki3> Yeah, it will be really hard to get it done before 
summer break and on the other hand we need some effort to get beta1 out asap as 
well
[17:20:54] <thiago> when would the deadline for a before-holidays release be?
[17:22:06] <+jaheikki3> Well, I am staring my holiday after 2 weeks and we have 
done all our summertime plans (substitutions, resourcing) based on current 
release plan
[17:22:42] <+jaheikki3> There is also 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-124839, which seems to be quite important 
for QtC 14
[17:24:13] <thiago> I can tell you I cannot reproduce that issue
[17:24:17] <+jaheikki3> Most of finns will start their holiday at the beginning 
of July so I would say Qt 6.7.2 has to happen during June if we make the 
decision to release it earlier
[17:25:12] <+jaheikki3> But that's something what I wouldn't like to do; it is 
always a mess to release some just before holidays starts
[17:25:14] <thiago> though... I hae seen popups not appear... maybe they did 
pop under and I didn't see
[17:25:37] <thiago> Anyway, that's a regressin but a normal bug
[17:25:43] <thiago> is there an emergency bug fix?
[17:25:51] <thiago> frkleint: specifically, is yours?
[17:27:14] <frkleint> thiago: Mine is already fixed in the 6.7 branch
[17:27:49] <+jaheikki3> Also  https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-124839 
should be fixed in '6.7'
[17:28:04] <thiago> yes, but is it an emergency that needs a re-release?
[17:28:16] <+jaheikki3> I don't know any at the moment
[17:28:20] <vohi> in terms of severity, I'd say that the designer issue is the 
only one to justify a 6.7.2 in June, but then taking latest 6.7, not just 6.7.1 
+ that fix
[17:28:52] <frkleint> thiago: The bug is embarrassing kind-of .you cannot 
change int properties
[17:28:55] <thiago> but is it sufficient for a 6.7.2?
[17:29:34] <frkleint> Hm..depends
[17:29:36] <thiago> we *can* release 6.7.2 as 6.7.1+that fix alone
[17:30:38] <+jaheikki3> In my opinion if it is important enough to cause new 
release it is then Qt 6.7.2 with latest from '6.7'; I don't see that one so 
severe to do new release just for it
[17:31:26] <vohi> git rev-list --count shows 174 commits between v6.7.1 and 
origin/6.7 in qtbase alone, so if we go through the effort, than make sure that 
we release all those patches and get fast feedback to those as well
[17:31:26] <akseli> in the past when we have rushed something unplanned out 
before vacation time there is usually someone(tm) who need to clean up the mess 
afterwards and worst case re-release x.y.z.1 when most of the people are on 
vacation.
[17:31:47] <thiago> the issue with doing 6.7 branch is that it requires more 
testing
[17:32:02] <thiago> but if jaheikki3 feels confident of a quick turn-around 
from there, good
[17:32:23] <+jaheikki3> That's true and I don't, I totally agree with akseli
[17:32:24] <thiago> akseli: good point
[17:32:52] <thiago> so I think we agree that 6.7 branch is not suitable for a 
release in June. Anyone disagrees?
[17:33:41] <vohi> jaheikki3: let's discuss if and how a proper 6.7.2 release in 
June would fit into the release testing team's schedules, and conclude next week
[17:33:54] <thiago> can we afford a week?
[17:34:09] <thiago> if we want to do a release from the 6.7 branch, we probably 
need to start now
[17:34:17] <+jaheikki3> True
[17:34:47] <vohi> yes; if they confirm it can be done, then no need to wait 
with starting the work; if they say it can't, then it can't
[17:34:52] <thiago> in other words, not deciding to release 6.7 branch right 
now means we won't release it before the end of June. So the only opportunity 
to release the fix is 6.7.1 + one patch
[17:35:16] <+jaheikki3> And my opinion is that any of these discussed issues 
aren't critical enough to start hurrying with the release
[17:36:33] <+jaheikki3> I know that QTBUG-124839 is important for QtC and so on 
if we make the desicion to do new release because of QTBUG-125983  it will be 
hard to explain why we won't fix it also
[17:36:37] <thiago> the alternative is to tell people to apply that patch when 
they build qttools
[17:37:15] <+jaheikki3> Yeah, I would just add that in qt 6.7 known issues and 
keep the original plan
[17:37:27] <carewolf> we also had one P0 security patch that came in from chrome
[17:37:28] <vohi> my suggestion is basically: authorize Jani to make the 
decision based on what the RTA team says
[17:37:40] <thiago> I agree
[17:37:47] <akseli> +1
[17:38:13] <thiago> security patches don't need a new release. The patches 
suffice.
[17:38:13] <+jaheikki3> Ok, I'll discuss with the team tomorrow & let's see 
what will be the conclusion
[17:38:19] <carewolf> great
[17:38:32] <+jaheikki3> Then the last item: improving qt release notes
[17:39:15] <+jaheikki3> It is related to this thread: 
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2024-June/045368.html
[17:40:01] <+jaheikki3> At least one thing we can improve is to update the 
release note for Qt 6.7.1
[17:40:29] <+jaheikki3> Because it is in its own repo and we can update it when 
ever it is needed
[17:41:18] <+jaheikki3> vohi: did you have some improvements or ideas already 
in your mind?
[17:41:25] <vohi> indeed. the main issue for now is if/how we should/can review 
the release notes before release to catch issues like the one pointed out 
(boiler plate header claims BC with 6.7.0, change log entry later states that 
QtMultimedia is not BC with 6.7.0)
[17:42:29] <vohi> how much time is there between the generation of the release 
notes, and the actual release? Is it realistic to send a heads=up to the list 
for people to check and amend things in time?
[17:43:05] <vohi> (and that doesn't guarantee anything of course, but it might 
be just enough)
[17:43:34] <+jaheikki3> Usually we generate the note when content is frozen
[17:43:42] <+jaheikki3> so there is time to review it
[17:44:12] <vohi> ok; so maybe a heads-up to the list when that happens is all 
that's needed and the only thing that's practical anyway
[17:44:16] <+jaheikki3> Just to define the list of reviewers and I'll make sure 
they will be added as a reviewers
[17:44:40] <+jaheikki3> I can also sent heads up to dev ml
[17:45:01] <+jaheikki3> if that's way we agree to proceed
[17:45:57] <vohi> +1 for mail to dev ml
[17:46:38] <+jaheikki3> Let's try that; I'll sent heads-up to dev ml next time
[17:47:24] <frkleint> [have to rush, bye]
[17:47:31] <+jaheikki3> I think it was all at this time so let's end this 
meeting now & have new one tue 11th June at this same time
[17:47:45] <+jaheikki3> Thanks for your participation, bye
[17:47:47] <vohi> thanks!
-- 
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Reply via email to