On 2017-06-23 21:45, Adam Treat wrote:
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?
Neither. In particular, it's not about downloads as a sole criterion. I
was wondering how we can know that by 5.11 the download ratio for 2013
is sufficiently low so as to commit to the drop date already now whilst
at the same time using the current high download numbers to prevent
dropping 2013 from 5.10 right now. What's the contingency plan in case
the download numbers six months from now are still 30%? Either we still
drop, because we said so, then the download argument becomes totally
bogus, or we don't drop, in which case the announcement Thiago intends
to add to the 5.9.1 changelog will be totally bogus.
The deeper point is that I think we should drop stuff in LTS+1, not
after LTS+1. If we don't drop 2013 for 5.10, we need to carry it until
the next Qt 5 LTS, imo. I don't care much either way, as my baby
(QStringView) works fine with MSVC 2013. But getting there _was_ hard,
and the pain will only grow for every new feature we add (though GCC can
also be a PITA, as QThread::create() currently shows).
Thanks,
Marc
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
