Qt 5.5.0 Post Mortem: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
** Perhaps we should do header reviews before the beta (as well as later) in order to catch problems early and avoid trying to address them in a rush. | ** Perhaps we should do header reviews before the beta (as well as later) in order to catch problems early and avoid trying to address them in a rush. | ||
* Last minute issues detected in the binary installers | * Last minute issues detected in the binary installers | ||
** We have a ChangeLog for the Qt modules, but not for the installers. Such a detailed list would help verifying the packages. | ** We have a ChangeLog for the Qt modules, but not for the installers. Such a detailed list would help verifying the packages. Also, checking a diff of the file content compared to the last releases for each package would have spotted broken things like qtwebview missing, missing gstreamer backends ... | ||
== What was causing the delays & how we could improve those == | == What was causing the delays & how we could improve those == | ||
* CI system instability | * CI system instability | ||
* We should be able to release extra betas if there are blockers delaying a proper RC. There should never be more than a month between releases once the first beta is out. | * We should be able to release extra betas if there are blockers delaying a proper RC. There should never be more than a month between releases once the first beta is out. | ||
* There's always confusion what should be in the packages, and what not. | |||
== What went well & what should be continued == | == What went well & what should be continued == | ||
Latest revision as of 08:09, 2 July 2015
What needs to be improved & how
- API Reviews & process
- There were lots of discussion & changes related to public APIs very late of releasing process. That needs to be improved for the future releases so that API reviews are done early enough & official header diff is just a final verification
- Header diffs should be done earlier
- Perhaps we should do header reviews before the beta (as well as later) in order to catch problems early and avoid trying to address them in a rush.
- Last minute issues detected in the binary installers
- We have a ChangeLog for the Qt modules, but not for the installers. Such a detailed list would help verifying the packages. Also, checking a diff of the file content compared to the last releases for each package would have spotted broken things like qtwebview missing, missing gstreamer backends ...
What was causing the delays & how we could improve those
- CI system instability
- We should be able to release extra betas if there are blockers delaying a proper RC. There should never be more than a month between releases once the first beta is out.
- There's always confusion what should be in the packages, and what not.
What went well & what should be continued
Something else
- Be very vocal and clear about intended support for compilers and toolchains