Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

>; Alex Blasche <alexander.blas...@qt.io> > Cc: Qt development mailing list <development@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Development [mailto:development-

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> On 28 Mar 2017, at 08:09, Alex Blasche wrote: > > >>> Sounds good, but please remember we'll need to keep at least the source >>> tarballs for each and every beta and RC that we release. >> >> Yeah, that's OK > > This implies that the user can identify the exact

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

>> Sounds good, but please remember we'll need to keep at least the source >> tarballs for each and every beta and RC that we release. > >Yeah, that's OK This implies that the user can identify the exact tag or version (aka beta 5) somewhere in the installer. Each bug report has to state this

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 07:04, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On segunda-feira, 27 de março de 2017 21:21:41 PDT Jani Heikkinen wrote: >>> Maybe every week is too aggressive, since few people will test every week >>> and give feedback in time for the next release. We may

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

On segunda-feira, 27 de março de 2017 21:21:41 PDT Jani Heikkinen wrote: > > Maybe every week is too aggressive, since few people will test every week > > and give feedback in time for the next release. We may find that every > > other week is better. > > Yes, the goal is to have new beta n about

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

f of Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:02 AM To: Simon Hausmann; Thiago Macieira; development@qt-project.org; releas...@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process Hi, Perhaps i

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

behalf of Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:02 AM To: Simon Hausmann; Thiago Macieira; development@qt-project.org; releas...@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process Hi, Perhaps it is best to talk with marketing

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

On 04/01/2017 16:25, Frederik Gladhorn wrote: On tirsdag 3. januar 2017 08.02.21 CET Tuukka Turunen wrote: Hi, Perhaps it is best to talk with marketing about the name of the "release done immediately after branching to the .0 release branch". Reading the discussion, it seems that other than

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

ha as well as between Alpha and > Beta. But that is something we can discuss later. > > Yours, > > Tuukka > > > From: Development > [mailto:development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf > Of Simon Hausmann Sent: pe

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Since general churn while "stabilising" is a central part of the discussion, let's take a look at the change, since my early November API review push, in just the not-obviously-boring[*] changes to API-related headers. ([*] If you can see any changes in the reviews that a dumb script could be

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

On Behalf Of Tuukka Turunen Sent: tiistai 3. tammikuuta 2017 10.02 To: Simon Hausmann <simon.hausm...@qt.io>; Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>; development@qt-project.org; releas...@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process Ahhh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your email. Yes, you're right, in that case the branch makes no difference and beta is a better name. Simon From: Develop

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

cieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 4:42:12 PM To: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 13:27:30 BRST, Simon Hausmann escreveu: > I find that the branch is relevant

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 13:27:30 BRST, Simon Hausmann escreveu: > I find that the branch is relevant in this context, as it relates to the > amount of patches going in. The amount of patches going in is IMO related > to the probably of introducing regressions. The process

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

@intel.com Sent: December 23, 2016 14:20 To: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 07:17:01 BRST, Tuukka Turunen escreveu: > > Call it beta 2 (or gamma 1) right after branch and on

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 07:17:01 BRST, Tuukka Turunen escreveu: > > Call it beta 2 (or gamma 1) right after branch and one we've iterated and > > we could have released, we call it release candidate. We release them > > more often, with more iterations, so that we get more

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Robin Burchell > Sent: perjantaina 23. joulukuuta 2016 3.40 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Thiago > Macieira > Sent: torstaina 22. joulukuuta 2016 22.09 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adj

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

My (slightly delayed) $0.02: On releasing in general: I would agree that releases take too long, often, but I am of the belief that a good part of this is a mess of our own making. For instance, due to an end-user or project requiring a specific version or purely out of fear that the next release

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Em quinta-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2016, às 12:54:08 BRST, Tuukka Turunen escreveu: > > And besides, alpha and beta are traditional and well understood. > > (Following that pattern though, I guess we ought to call the RC a > > “gamma”, but that’s not traditional for some reason.) > > > > If

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process On 22 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Maurice Kalinowski <maurice.kalinow...@qt.io> wrote: Hence, Technology Preview Preview Release Preview Release Candidate Release Tech Preview is so far the term for a module which is released

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Shawn > Rutledge > Sent: torstaina 22. joulukuuta 2016 9.25 > To: development@qt-project.org; releas...@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Developmen

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> On 22 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Maurice Kalinowski wrote: > > Hence, > > Technology Preview > Preview > Release Preview > Release Candidate > Release Tech Preview is so far the term for a module which is released but we reserve the right to continue making API changes

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

cie...@intel.com>; development@qt-project.org Betreff: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process I think many users see a beta as something you better not touch, but a release candidates can be trusted much more. I know it's not intended that way but people learned by exper

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

how the final status? From: Development <development-bounces+marco.bubke=qt...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:45:37 PM To: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust r

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Em terça-feira, 20 de dezembro de 2016, às 13:34:39 BRST, Tuukka Turunen escreveu: > If desired, we could use some other name than "Release Candidate 1" for the > release that begins the last phase of the release. It could be called "Beta > 2" or "Technology preview", if so desired. Personally, I

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Sean Harmer > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2016 16:14 > I wonder how much of the current pressure on releases is driven by the time- > based release policy. We

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> -Original Message- > From: sean.harmer On Behalf Of Sean Harmer > Sent: tiistaina 20. joulukuuta 2016 17.14 > To: development@qt-project.org > Cc: Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io>; releas...@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust r

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

On Tuesday 20 December 2016 15:14:17 Sean Harmer wrote: > Hi Tuukka, > > I agree with your proposal, however I think there is also another issue or > two that we should address. Except that instead of calling it RC1 why not call it another beta? The RC should be something that *may* be suitable

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Hi Tuukka, I agree with your proposal, however I think there is also another issue or two that we should address. At present we have ~ 4 releases per year 2 minor versions and 2 further patch releases. One issue is that it looks like 5.8.0 will soon render the very new 5.7.1 release

Re: [Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

> On 20 Dec 2016, at 14:34, Tuukka Turunen wrote: > > > Hi, > > I think we have three major problems with our current release process > regarding the release candidate phase: > 1. Process to make a RC that is as flawless as final causes > inefficiency as we

[Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Hi, I think we have three major problems with our current release process regarding the release candidate phase: 1. Process to make a RC that is as flawless as final causes inefficiency as we only get full test coverage with the RC itself 2. We get full attention for testing a