On 9/7/16, 4:26 AM, "Development on behalf of Olivier Goffart" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>But in the end, we want our users to upgrade. So they >can reconsider the reason they cannot upgrade while weighing the new features/ >bugfixes in the equation. Maybe I’m being overly sensitive. Having worked in aerospace and automotive, I actually find the above comments offensive... >The question also is what is a bug fix? >The change in question is this one: >https://codereview.qt-project.org/167238 >The bug was already existing in Qt 4.x since the feature was introduced. >People have been able to wait so many years, they can continue waiting. >In fact, this "bugfix" is a "feature". >The change looks harmless, but maybe this suddenly cause augly flickering in >some cases and we don't know. I've seen enough trivial patches making feature >unusable. ... and completely at odds with these comments. I’m not sure how you can cite the risk associated with even small changes and at the same time suggest the solution is moving to the current version of Qt which has significantly more changes? I do understand where you are coming from - there are limited resources and supporting multiple versions means some of those resources aren’t available for other work. At the same time, providing an LTS version was a commitment made by Qt. Yet it is looking more like a nuisance to be given as little attention as possible. I’d caution this isn’t the way to appeal to the audiences that care about long term stability. Regards, Brett _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
