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

2017-04-11 Thread Simon Hausmann 
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.

Simon

> On 11. Apr 2017, at 21:37, Thiago Macieira  wrote:
> 
>> 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 5.9 branch has new features and bugfixes. 
> 
> -- 
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Thiago Macieira 
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 5.9 branch has new features and bugfixes. 

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) 
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., getting time running 
something and gaining confidence it won't break.  Under a broad set of 
use-cases, not just what is covered by CI.

The commits to 5.8, without the addition of new features, give a sense of 
burned-in stability.  I don't have that confidence in 5.9, particularly when it 
is in beta status.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:43 PM, Robin Burchell wrote:
> We have three targets: dev, the stable branch (more or less 5.9, since 5.8.1 
> is DOA) and the LTS (5.6). Adding an additional 
> "level" there as you seem to be proposing with a "more-stable-than-stable" 
> would be something I would consider new.

Well said, thanks.  I guess it boils down to whether you think 5.9 is stable or 
not.  I guess you can tell how I feel about it ;-)

I still see value in being able to push/pull a fix without having to pull in 
the new 5.9 features with it.  For the people on this ML.

Regards,
Brett

-Original Message-
From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+bstottle=ford@qt-project.org] 
On Behalf Of Robin Burchell
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:43 PM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: 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.
> 
> In this case I think they do not, based on all of the commits to the 
> 5.8 branches that aren't included in the v5.8.0 tag (last available).  
> If those were to be included in a 5.8.1 release, I would agree with you.

qt5's 5.9 branch will contain a known-good configuration that built and passed 
tests for everything in it that the 5.9 branch of each individual repository 
won't offer you. I think you misunderstood this - I think that Simon was saying 
that the branches (not the tags) of qt5.git should be considered to be fairly 
stable for the people working on Qt itself (although obviously, qt5/dev will be 
more bleeding-edge than qt5/).

> > For users of the product we can only point to tags. For developers 
> > all active branches should be good enough. I find it hard to imagine 
> > introducing a third "level" that is good enough for "some" but clearly not 
> > all. Unless there is a consensus to define and introduce this new way of 
> > identifying a development branch.
> 
> Right, but doesn't that imply keeping 5.8 active until 5.9 is at least 
> as stable?  How is it "a new way"?

We have three targets: dev, the stable branch (more or less 5.9, since
5.8.1 is DOA) and the LTS (5.6). Adding an additional "level" there as you seem 
to be proposing with a "more-stable-than-stable" would be something I would 
consider new.

--
  Robin Burchell
  ro...@crimson.no
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Simon Hausmann 
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 
>> 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 combination of
>> branch tips of the modules.
> 
> Well, there is one more criterion: the release testing. Qt 5.8 has passed 
> through that stage, 5.9 has not.
> 
> -- 
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Thiago Macieira 
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 combination of
> branch tips of the modules.

Well, there is one more criterion: the release testing. Qt 5.8 has passed 
through that stage, 5.9 has not.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Robin Burchell 
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.
> 
> In this case I think they do not, based on all of the commits to the 5.8
> branches that aren't included in the v5.8.0 tag (last available).  If
> those were to be included in a 5.8.1 release, I would agree with you.

qt5's 5.9 branch will contain a known-good configuration that built and
passed tests for everything in it that the 5.9 branch of each individual
repository won't offer you. I think you misunderstood this - I think
that Simon was saying that the branches (not the tags) of qt5.git should
be considered to be fairly stable for the people working on Qt itself
(although obviously, qt5/dev will be more bleeding-edge than qt5/).

> > For users of the product we can only point to tags. For developers all 
> > active branches should be good enough. I 
> > find it hard to imagine introducing a third "level" that is good enough for 
> > "some" but clearly not all. Unless there
> > is a consensus to define and introduce this new way of identifying a 
> > development branch.
> 
> Right, but doesn't that imply keeping 5.8 active until 5.9 is at least as
> stable?  How is it "a new way"?

We have three targets: dev, the stable branch (more or less 5.9, since
5.8.1 is DOA) and the LTS (5.6). Adding an additional "level" there as
you seem to be proposing with a "more-stable-than-stable" would be
something I would consider new.

-- 
  Robin Burchell
  ro...@crimson.no
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Simon Hausmann 
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 the criteria for developers of Qt.

For the users of Qt only tags go further, because they come after release test 
automation- an additional step of QA.

Simon

> On 11. Apr 2017, at 18:16, 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.
> 
> In this case I think they do not, based on all of the commits to the 5.8 
> branches that aren't included in the v5.8.0 tag (last available).  If those 
> were to be included in a 5.8.1 release, I would agree with you.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Are you saying 5.9 Beta is more stable than the HEAD of the 5.8 branches?  At 
> some point the 5.9 branches will be more stable, but I don't see any reason 
> to believe it is true now.
> 
>> For users of the product we can only point to tags. For developers all 
>> active branches should be good enough. I 
>> find it hard to imagine introducing a third "level" that is good enough for 
>> "some" but clearly not all. Unless there
>> is a consensus to define and introduce this new way of identifying a 
>> development branch.
> 
> Right, but doesn't that imply keeping 5.8 active until 5.9 is at least as 
> stable?  How is it "a new way"?
> 
> Brett
> 
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) 
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 that aren't included in the v5.8.0 tag (last available).  If those 
were to be included in a 5.8.1 release, I would agree with you.

> 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?

Are you saying 5.9 Beta is more stable than the HEAD of the 5.8 branches?  At 
some point the 5.9 branches will be more stable, but I don't see any reason to 
believe it is true now.

> For users of the product we can only point to tags. For developers all active 
> branches should be good enough. I 
> find it hard to imagine introducing a third "level" that is good enough for 
> "some" but clearly not all. Unless there
> is a consensus to define and introduce this new way of identifying a 
> development branch.

Right, but doesn't that imply keeping 5.8 active until 5.9 is at least as 
stable?  How is it "a new way"?

Brett

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Thiago Macieira 
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 up to a few weeks ago, more fixes went into
> 5.8 QtBase than changes into 5.9, even though TQC personell was asked to
> ignore 5.8.
> 
> You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep it
> open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this day.

While I agree that not releasing 5.8.1 was a big mistake, leaving 5.8 open 
serves no purpose. Let's close it and focus on getting 5.9 out ASAP. And not 
make the same mistake for the 5.10 timeframe.

Anecdote from IRC last night:
23:10 < engys> Isn't that easy to get a nice qt build done from git this days. 
   Released Qt 5.8.0 version had a MySQL utf8 Bug that should be 
   fixed with 5.8.1 -> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-591 
   but there is no 5.8.1 because Qt directly go to 5.9
23:13 < engys> Then this qmake dummy.cpp under mkspecs in Qt 5.8 that take 
   place in every project. Is this dummy.cpp also in 5.9?
23:22 < engys> So there is no official bugfree 5.8 binary out there because 
they 
   are from 2017-01-20 and the MySQL patchset is from 2017-02-27
23:23 < engys> Qt 5.7 was a much nicer release!


-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Simon Hausmann 
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 the product we can only point to tags. For developers all active 
branches should be good enough. I find it hard to imagine introducing a third 
"level" that is good enough for "some" but clearly not all. Unless there is a 
consensus to define and introduce this new way of identifying a development 
branch.

Simon

On 11. Apr 2017, at 16:59, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)  wrote:

>> 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 
> expect to be able retrieve and do a rebuild with that fix.  Is that 
> unreasonable?
> 
> Right now, the only branch that meets that criteria is 5.8, so I disagree 
> there is no benefit to it.
> 
> Whether it is worth the effort is a different question.  I'm simply trying to 
> make the point that the value doesn't go to zero because there isn't another 
> planned release from that branch.
> 
> Regards,
> Brett
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) 
> 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 
expect to be able retrieve and do a rebuild with that fix.  Is that 
unreasonable?

Right now, the only branch that meets that criteria is 5.8, so I disagree there 
is no benefit to it.

Whether it is worth the effort is a different question.  I'm simply trying to 
make the point that the value doesn't go to zero because there isn't another 
planned release from that branch.

Regards,
Brett
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Tuukka Turunen 


> 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 5.8 branch is because it *is* stable.  And 
> since it has "... a lot more", the 5.9 branch is not stable.  

I was actually not referring to features, but the fact that quite a lot of bug 
fixes have been pushed to 5.9 and these are not present in 5.8 branch.

> Whether The Qt Company will generate any packaged versions on the 5.8 branch 
> after 
> the 5.8.0 release is really not the point, is it?
>For those that are building from source and who have requirements for 
> stability vs. new features, doesn't there need to be a stable HEAD to push 
> to?  If the 5.8 branch is closed, those developers will be forced to move
>  to 5.9 beta, or be required to find, cherry-pick and validate commits onto 
> 5.8 themselves, right?  Leaving the branch open, with CI runs on changes, 
> seems like the only way to keep a known stable HEAD available until
>  the known stable HEAD is on the 5.9 branch.

The problem with pushing some fixes to 5.8 is that we need to do merges up 
(which need effort from people, machine cycles and calendar time). This is the 
penalty we take when there are patch releases coming from the stable branch. It 
is a major impact to the next release. 

Now that there are no patch releases planned, the benefit from pushing to 5.8 
then merging to 5.9 does not exist. That is the key point – we need to create a 
stable base for users, catch up with lost time due to 5.8 delay, and to be able 
to implement a major change in CI so that we can make patch releases easier in 
the future.

So this is not about changing the approach in general – just a temporary action 
to be able to reach the abovementioned goals. 

Yours,

Tuukka


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Kai Koehne 


> -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 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 it before. And no, it has not been 
> "discussed".
> I raised the question, and no-one answered.

When did we ever do a release of qtbase, without any other modules? 

> Why this semblance of a discussion, anyway? Why don't you just go ahead
> and pull the plug on 5.8?

Because _you_ started the discussion again. Tuukka just suggested to execute 
the decision we've made weeks ago now.

> It's not like the Qt Project (or what's left of it) has
> any say in this, you made that abundantly clear in the past.

Lars as Chief Maintainer sent out a mail about this, so this is the official 
stance of the Qt Project on this.

Seriously, can we please move on? This is in no way productive.

Kai
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) 
> 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 stable.  Whether The Qt Company 
will generate any packaged versions on the 5.8 branch after the 5.8.0 release 
is really not the point, is it?

For those that are building from source and who have requirements for stability 
vs. new features, doesn't there need to be a stable HEAD to push to?  If the 
5.8 branch is closed, those developers will be forced to move to 5.9 beta, or 
be required to find, cherry-pick and validate commits onto 5.8 themselves, 
right?  Leaving the branch open, with CI runs on changes, seems like the only 
way to keep a known stable HEAD available until the known stable HEAD is on the 
5.9 branch.

Regards,
Brett


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


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 backport
>>>  bugfixes from a bleeding-edge branch to a stabler branch?
>>
>>  Afaict, it's because it's against the workflow of the RCS.
>
> So, we think it's better to forward-merge everything from stable to
> dev, rather than
> cherry-pick from dev to stable?

In git cherry-picking results in duplication of commits between branches, that
have similar content but different hashes. Also, in case of conflicts merge
can result in way less work than cherry-picking, as in O(N) vs O(1)

>
>>  Are you proposing a everything-to-dev-cherry-pick-into-older-branches-only
>>  model?
>
> I'm not proposing it yet, but such models seem plenty attractive to me.
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread 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 backport
>> bugfixes from a bleeding-edge branch to a stabler branch?
>
> Afaict, it's because it's against the workflow of the RCS.

So, we think it's better to forward-merge everything from stable to
dev, rather than
cherry-pick from dev to stable?

> Are you proposing a everything-to-dev-cherry-pick-into-older-branches-only
> model?

I'm not proposing it yet, but such models seem plenty attractive to me.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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 it before. And no, it has not been 
"discussed". I raised the question, and no-one answered.

Why this semblance of a discussion, anyway? Why don't you just go ahead and 
pull the plug on 5.8? It's not like the Qt Project (or what's left of it) has 
any say in this, you made that abundantly clear in the past.

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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 everything-to-dev-cherry-pick-into-older-branches-only 
model?

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Tuukka Turunen 


> 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 focus into as that is what benefits Qt the best overall. We need to 
provide a solid release that receives multiple patch releases. 

Yours,

Tuukka

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Ville Voutilainen 
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 know GCC works differently, probably because you use a RCS that sucks at
> merging, but the Qt way was, and continues to be, to put (important) bug-fixes
> (incl. compile-fixes) into the stable branch, and merge them up. This is how
> Git works best, and apart from LTS, we strongly discourage cherry-picking. The
> problem at hand is now whether 5.8 continues to be the stable branch, even
> though no release is planned from it.

Well, the way GCC works may be due to hysterical raisins; today almost
all of its developers
use git, but it's unlikely that they would change the way they work.
Why? Because
the way things are done in GCC, trunk always gets every bug fix and
also works as the first
line of defense against regressions, and the released-branches are
less likely to
break, because not everything under the sun is pushed there. That sort
of a model
makes perfect sense to me (and I claim that's not just because I'm
used to it, I say
it *makes sense*), whereas the Qt model gets some getting used to.

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?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


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 the 
> time to close 5.8 and fully focus into making Qt 5.9 good. The sooner we get 
> 5.9.0 out, the sooner we can also get 5.9.1 out. And note that 5.9.0 contains 
> every fix that would have been part of 5.8.1 and more – a lot more.
>
> No-one is happy about skipping patch releases for 5.8. This is a trade off 
> done in order to get better Qt releases in the future. Keeping 5.8 branch 
> open and pushing fixes there instead of 5.9 results in worse 5.9 than we 
> could have by focusing to it. Every single merge from 5.8 to 5.9 is time away 
> from people to work on 5.9 (and dev), from machines to be able to work on 5.9 
> (and dev), and from calendar time of having fixes on the hands of most of the 
> users (i.e. getting them into a release of Qt or pre-releases of Qt).

Maybe it's plausible to make 5.8.1 release just for QtBase?

>
> Yours,
>
> Tuukka
>
> On 11/04/2017, 14.17, "Development on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo" 
>  giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> wrote:
>
> 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 without waiting 4-5 months for 5.9.1.
>
> Yes, they *will* skip any .0 release, and convincing customers to
> upgrade to a new minor release is definitely more complicated than
> convincing to upgrade to a new patch release (... which in this case
> translates to tracking the 5.8 branch).
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
> KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company | Tel: UK +44-1625-809908
> KDAB - Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread 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 the time to 
close 5.8 and fully focus into making Qt 5.9 good. The sooner we get 5.9.0 out, 
the sooner we can also get 5.9.1 out. And note that 5.9.0 contains every fix 
that would have been part of 5.8.1 and more – a lot more. 

No-one is happy about skipping patch releases for 5.8. This is a trade off done 
in order to get better Qt releases in the future. Keeping 5.8 branch open and 
pushing fixes there instead of 5.9 results in worse 5.9 than we could have by 
focusing to it. Every single merge from 5.8 to 5.9 is time away from people to 
work on 5.9 (and dev), from machines to be able to work on 5.9 (and dev), and 
from calendar time of having fixes on the hands of most of the users (i.e. 
getting them into a release of Qt or pre-releases of Qt).

Yours,

Tuukka

On 11/04/2017, 14.17, "Development on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo" 
 wrote:

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 without waiting 4-5 months for 5.9.1.

Yes, they *will* skip any .0 release, and convincing customers to
upgrade to a new minor release is definitely more complicated than
convincing to upgrade to a new patch release (... which in this case
translates to tracking the 5.8 branch).

Cheers,
-- 
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company | Tel: UK +44-1625-809908
KDAB - Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo 
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 without waiting 4-5 months for 5.9.1.

Yes, they *will* skip any .0 release, and convincing customers to
upgrade to a new minor release is definitely more complicated than
convincing to upgrade to a new patch release (... which in this case
translates to tracking the 5.8 branch).

Cheers,
-- 
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company | Tel: UK +44-1625-809908
KDAB - Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


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. 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 releases planned 
>> from it.
>>
>>  Can you explain why you can not push your Qt Base changes to 5.9 like 
>> ~everyone else?
>
> I still hear suggestions along the lines of pushing stuff into 5.8,
> from which they "eventually get merged into 5.9 and dev". That
> merging seems to be an occasional manual process, though, so the
> overall situation is confusing indeed.

Note that you can ask lqi in #qt-labs to perform some particular merge if you 
need it.

> At any rate, I think
> it would be wise to do a 5.8->5.9 merge before even considering
> closing 5.8, lest we lose bugfixes.
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Aleix Pol 
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 few weeks ago, more fixes went into
> 5.8 QtBase than changes into 5.9, even though TQC personell was asked to
> ignore 5.8.
>
> You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep it
> open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this day.

What's the point of keeping 5.8 open if there's not going to be
another 5.8 release?

Aleix
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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 sum it up quite well.
> > 
> > ..
> > 
> > You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep
> > it open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to
> > this day.
> 
>  Any new change in qtbase means need a new round of qt5.git integration and
> rebuild all other modules, because they depend on qtbase.

No, it doesn't (have to) mean that.

We usually do not change APIs in a stable branch. A stable branch is forwards 
and backwards compatible. If we close dependent modules and only keep QtBase 
open, it follows you cannot commit to dependent modules. In particular, you 
cannot adapt to changes in 5.8. Which means that we naturally restrict what 
changes can do into QtBase-5.8. Personally, I never had the need to change 
something in other modules when commiting something to QtBase-stable.

So dependent modules don't need to be rebuilt. They can either run against an 
updated qtbase binary, or use the old qtbase snapshot for much longer. 
Something like once a month or so in 5.8 should not load the CI too much. You 
can schedule it for CET nights. The CI is idle then, anyway.

Which brings me to the question: why is a new git5.git integration (for any 
branch) not attempted each night, automatically? Is the CI doing something 
else at that time? Shouldn't doing so increase the CI capacity by almost 50%, 
for free?

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Tuukka Turunen 

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 getting the fixes to users 
(as it is 5.9 where beta snapshots are created from).

For example, on March 1st Lars wrote: “Let’s conclude this topic now by moving 
on towards 5.9 as Tuukka proposed. After some thinking I also agree that this 
is the best course of action from where we are right now. This also implies 
that bug fixes should now get pushed to the 5.9 branch and we should close the 
5.8 branch soon.”

What I am now saying is that it is now time to do what has been discussed. We 
have Qt 5.9 beta out and there is constant focus in getting regular snapshots 
from 5.9. 

Yours,

Tuukka

On 11/04/2017, 12.00, "Development on behalf of Marc Mutz" 
 wrote:

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 Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Simon Hausmann 
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 moving to a new data center and purchasing new hardware. The 
project is scheduled for
completion by the end of the first half of the year. It is more or less a 
binary switch from the Qt perspective,
as the current architecture does not really allow us to incrementally grow the 
running system. Replacing the
system is also taking man power.

So the argument is valid and we are working on increasing the capacity.

Simon


From: Development  on 
behalf of Marc Mutz 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:14:59 AM
To: Qt development mailing list
Subject: 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
merging, but the Qt way was, and continues to be, to put (important) bug-fixes
(incl. compile-fixes) into the stable branch, and merge them up. This is how
Git works best, and apart from LTS, we strongly discourage cherry-picking. The
problem at hand is now whether 5.8 continues to be the stable branch, even
though no release is planned from it.

I say yes, and Tuuka says no.

As a compromise, I suggested to keep qtbase's 5.8 open, and close the other
module's 5.8 branches.

Repeating Thiago's stats from Mar 14th:

$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=2.months.ago v5.8.0..origin/5.8 | wc -l
228
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=2.months.ago origin/5.8..origin/5.9 | wc -l
346
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=2.months.ago origin/5.9..origin/dev | wc -l
202

So, at this point, 5.9 receives more commits, but 5.8 is far from starved. It
receives roughly half the commits 5.9 receives, also at shorter scales:

$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=March.14th v5.8.0..origin/5.8 | wc -l
71
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=March.14th origin/5.8..origin/5.9 | wc -l
156
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=March.14th origin/5.9..origin/dev | wc -l
131

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 still use the same argument? This re-inforces the fear that we'll also
not have a 5.9.1.

Thanks,
Marc

--
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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 still use the same argument? This re-inforces
> the fear that we'll also not have a 5.9.1.

Sorry, Ville, the 'you' in the above paragraph is not a personal one. It's 
meant to mean "TQC".

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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 
merging, but the Qt way was, and continues to be, to put (important) bug-fixes 
(incl. compile-fixes) into the stable branch, and merge them up. This is how 
Git works best, and apart from LTS, we strongly discourage cherry-picking. The 
problem at hand is now whether 5.8 continues to be the stable branch, even 
though no release is planned from it.

I say yes, and Tuuka says no.

As a compromise, I suggested to keep qtbase's 5.8 open, and close the other 
module's 5.8 branches.

Repeating Thiago's stats from Mar 14th:

$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=2.months.ago v5.8.0..origin/5.8 | wc -l
228
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=2.months.ago origin/5.8..origin/5.9 | wc -l
346
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=2.months.ago origin/5.9..origin/dev | wc -l
202

So, at this point, 5.9 receives more commits, but 5.8 is far from starved. It 
receives roughly half the commits 5.9 receives, also at shorter scales:

$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=March.14th v5.8.0..origin/5.8 | wc -l
71
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=March.14th origin/5.8..origin/5.9 | wc -l
156
$ git rev-list --no-merges --since=March.14th origin/5.9..origin/dev | wc -l
131

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 still use the same argument? This re-inforces the fear that we'll also 
not have a 5.9.1.

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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 Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Liang Qi 
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
> >> 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 though TQC personell was asked to
> > ignore 5.8.
> >
> > You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep
> it
> > open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this
> day.
>
>
> Here's an anecdote: this https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/189229/
> hasn't been merged
> to 5.9, as far as I can see. I find it curious that bugfixes from two
> weeks ago haven't trickled
> into 5.9 from 5.8 yet. Such matters may well raise the bar for users
> for working with 5.9 rather than
> with 5.8.
>
> You could check which changes in 5.8 are not merged in 5.9 yet:
https://gist.github.com/liangqi/afd4dea47e7ee84e017f4113844df5b1

There are only 6 changes in qtdeclarative.

Here is the merge for you: https://codereview.qt-project.org/191380

I normally will do merge if more than 10 changes, asked by someone, or just
before some releases(like 5.9 rc) and etc.

Certainly, there will be merges when 5.8 branch were closed. Don't worry
about that.

Best Regards,
Liang
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Liang Qi 
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 modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep it
> open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this day.
>

 Any new change in qtbase means need a new round of qt5.git integration and
rebuild all other modules, because they depend on qtbase.

Best Regards,
Liang
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Simon Hausmann 
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 
behalf of Ville Voutilainen 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 10:55:55 AM
To: Tuukka Turunen
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: 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 making it good for our users 
> than pushing stuff into a branch that has no further releases planned from it.
>
> Can you explain why you can not push your Qt Base changes to 5.9 like 
> ~everyone else?


I still hear suggestions along the lines of pushing stuff into 5.8,
from which they "eventually get merged into 5.9 and dev". That
merging seems to be an occasional manual process, though, so the
overall situation is confusing indeed.  At any rate, I think
it would be wise to do a 5.8->5.9 merge before even considering
closing 5.8, lest we lose bugfixes.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread 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. 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 releases planned from it.
>
> Can you explain why you can not push your Qt Base changes to 5.9 like 
> ~everyone else?


I still hear suggestions along the lines of pushing stuff into 5.8,
from which they "eventually get merged into 5.9 and dev". That
merging seems to be an occasional manual process, though, so the
overall situation is confusing indeed.  At any rate, I think
it would be wise to do a 5.8->5.9 merge before even considering
closing 5.8, lest we lose bugfixes.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Tuukka Turunen 

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 releases planned from it. 

Can you explain why you can not push your Qt Base changes to 5.9 like ~everyone 
else? 

Yours,

Tuukka
 

On 11/04/2017, 11.34, "Development on behalf of Ville Voutilainen" 
 wrote:

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 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 though TQC personell was asked to
>> ignore 5.8.
>>
>> You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep 
it
>> open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this 
day.
>
>
> Here's an anecdote: this https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/189229/
> hasn't been merged
> to 5.9, as far as I can see. I find it curious that bugfixes from two
> weeks ago haven't trickled
> into 5.9 from 5.8 yet. Such matters may well raise the bar for users
> for working with 5.9 rather than
> with 5.8.

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.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Ville Voutilainen 
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 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 though TQC personell was asked to
>> ignore 5.8.
>>
>> You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep it
>> open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this day.
>
>
> Here's an anecdote: this https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/189229/
> hasn't been merged
> to 5.9, as far as I can see. I find it curious that bugfixes from two
> weeks ago haven't trickled
> into 5.9 from 5.8 yet. Such matters may well raise the bar for users
> for working with 5.9 rather than
> with 5.8.

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.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Ville Voutilainen 
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 weeks ago, more fixes went into
> 5.8 QtBase than changes into 5.9, even though TQC personell was asked to
> ignore 5.8.
>
> You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep it
> open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this day.


Here's an anecdote: this https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/189229/
hasn't been merged
to 5.9, as far as I can see. I find it curious that bugfixes from two
weeks ago haven't trickled
into 5.9 from 5.8 yet. Such matters may well raise the bar for users
for working with 5.9 rather than
with 5.8.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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 though TQC personell was asked to 
ignore 5.8.

You can close 5.8 on all other modules, if you wish, but I'd ask to keep it 
open on QtBase, which has a lively development going on in 5.8 to this day.

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

2017-04-11 Thread Marc Mutz 
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.
> 
> typedef typename std::conditional std::is_pointer::value, T, const T &>::type parameter_type;
> 
> value_type value(int i, parameter_type defaultValue) const
> Q_DECL_NOEXCEPT { return size_t(i) < d->size ? at(i) : defaultValue; }

Boost::call_traits::param_type and the above, however, only work in in non-
deduced contexts. Iow: you cannot use it in a hypothetical

  typename 
  auto sin(boost::call_traits::param_type x);

  auto sinX = sin(1.0); // ERROR: cannot deduce 'A'

(this is another reason why still today one should write function templates as 
a pair of general template plus op()-in-template-class: you make the general 
template Q_ALWAYS_INLINE, and can specialize the class template's argument 
passing any way you like).

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development