On 06/23/2017 03:23 PM, Marc Mutz wrote:
[forgot to CC list]
On 2017-06-23 19:50, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 23 June 2017 09:17:55 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
The above argument makes no sense to me. What value does quoting
download numbers for 5.9, an LTS, have, to argue about dropping the
compiler from 5.10. Ever since we provide LTSs (yes, once), we drop
compilers in the version _after_ the LTS, which is kind of the natural
point to drop stuff.
The point is that in June 2017, 30% of the Windows downloads were for
MSVC
2013. it doesn't matter that this is an LTS release or not: way too many
people are using that compiler. We need to "wean" them off 2013, so I'm
starting a note in the 5.9.1 changelog that it will be gone in 5.11
(one year
advance notice):
We didn't "wean people off" 2012, either. And how can we decide to
drop 2013 in 5.11 if we don't know what the download numbers will be,
then, yet? Who's crystal ball makes such decisions possible?
Now you favor using retrospective downloads as sole criterion? You only
want to drop support when downloads go below a certain threshold?
Or is this your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum argument that using
downloads to inform is only legit when used retrospectively as sole
criterion?
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
