On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 02:32:58PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Simon Hausmann wrote: > > In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches > > open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not > > LTS. > > -1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS just does not fit together with > fast-moving distributions, and we really need those bugfix releases for the > branches we ship. > > Especially QtWebEngine requires those bugfix releases for security fixes, > and tracking LTS is not that great there because the base Chromium gets old > pretty quickly, and websites start complaining (e.g., Google already > complains about 5.9 being an outdated Chromium) or even stop working > altogether. The frequency of LTS releases has also so far been totally > insufficient to keep up with Chromium security fixes (see the huge amount of > time – almost a whole year! – between 5.6.2 and 5.6.3). > > I would rather see LTS canceled and more effort put into the current > releases, if having both is a problem.
I can't agree more - while I'm not a distro packager, I'm a maintainer of an opensource project using QtWebEngine. 5.x.0 releases are often quite painful, as they're full of regressions introduced because of new Chromium versions. I try to find report those as soon as possible, but there are always issues ( for an example) which only surface after a release. Like Kevin said, of course security updates are also a big issue, and only getting them all 6 months is definitely not good... Florian  https://www.qutebrowser.org/  https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-65223 -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | m...@the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development