> >> For me, it's quite simple: >> No (opensource/commercial) Qt CI = No (opensource/commercial) Qt >> binaries = No (opensource/commercial) support. > > No CI, see above. > No binaries, build from sources. > No support, sorry, I can't comment.
Just a quick comment from TQtC’s perspective on this: We do commercially support more platforms than we create binaries for. Linux/32bit is certainly one of those. But as Thiago pointed out, those platforms are not always tested quite as well (unfortunately we can’t possibly test all combinations of OS/CPU architecture/distribution in our CI). Cheers, Lars > >> If you don't build and test on a regular basis, it can break at any >> moment without anyone noticing (and it did happened at least once) > > You're right, but given all the other permutations, we're very likely covered > at a good 99% certainty. > >> PS: In case you think I'm ranting for free here, i would like to say >> (again) that I think Qt is a great piece of (opensource/commercial) >> SW, and big thumb up to anyone behind this, The Qt Project, The Qt >> Company, Intel, ICS, KDAB, KDE, ... and everyone else, individual or >> corporate. > > We're having a constructive conversation, don't worry. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
