It would be more confortable to have more artifacts for 2 reasons :
1. As we constantly update our product based on Qt (our release cycle is
between 3 and 6 months), reducing the delay to migrate to the latest
version of Qt (to improve the stability, performances, compatibility,...)
when come close to our release window can be great advantage for our final
users. A lot of previous versions of Qt breaks our application
initialization (essentially because of our homebrew 3D engine), or we got
small regressions on High DPI management. I think that having beta could be
also a chance for you to have better release if you got feedback sooner.
2. Some times we are interested by new features that should help us for a
mid-long term view, as Qt3D, webview,... For Qt3D for example I start the
migration from our 3D engine to it, I have reported few bugs on Qt 5.7 that
are blockers to continue this work, but there are already fixed on Qt 5.8
branch, sadly as it's a long term development it is hard for me to take
time build a custom version of Qt.
In the past I already build custom versions of Qt (5.0), but I got a issues
- Hard to configure correctly (especially with OpenGL)
- Not enough RAM on my computer
- Really long to compile (> 30 min per build), a big issue when you
develop on the same computer because you can't do anything during this
time. I had to build for Android, mingw and VS.
- I got issues with Qt creator and kits to stay compatible with Qt
- How to share with my coworkers? creating a new repo server for Qt
One of the main C++ problem is the building aspect, because of
compatibility issues (between compilers, platforms,...) building process
are to much complex. After you have to add the configuration of the build
that for the case is something natural.
Automate the build of softwares is something really hard to do.
PS: I really love Qt, it is something amazing and really good for the C++.
And I could not consider developing in C++ without it.
Else I just miss property bindings in C++ lol.
2016-09-18 15:17 GMT+02:00 André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de>:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:37:01AM +0200, Xavier Bigand wrote:
> > I am using Qt for my day job,
> > Our first difficulty with Qt is the release cycle that is really long
> and the
> > difficulty to test the futur versions. As we often need the latest
> features or
> > bug fixes, waiting 3-4 month isn't possible, and some times we just
> > our self features or use workaround for bugs. Alpha and Beta versions
> > accessible on the Qt maintenance tool that we use, and compiling Qt from
> > source is to much work for every platforms we use,...
> I cannot follow this line of reasoning.
> Binary downloads only help in setups without custom patches or without
> expertise to run a git clone / configure / make. But you do have custom
> and you do know how to build Qt.
> Asking for more artifacts to be produced e.g. for Alpha releases increases
> the pressure on the already difficult release process, i.e. has a high
> of delaying final releases even more.
> On the other hand you consider waiting periods of 3-4 months for a Qt
> already as problematic for your way of working. How does that fit?
Interest mailing list