Make it easiest on the development teams, as they are the people who work
on the code constantly. How often do Packagers have to repackage? As an end
user who thinks in terms of QA, I would much rather have Dev's who are
happy, as long as packagers are not utterly miserable. Over the years I
have occasionally rolled up packages, and as I recall, the Qt4 / Qt5 method
should not add too much additional packaging work.
Many thanks to all of the dev's who are making LXQt the best it can be!
Gary Sheppard
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jerome Leclanche <adys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to be clear: Qt4 LXQt *is* abandonware. 0.8 officially still
> support Qt4 but it will be dropped very soon after the release. If it
> has bugs, barring a 0.8.1 release there will not be any fixes for
> specifically qt4...
> J. Leclanche
>
>
> 2014-09-08 21:34 GMT+02:00 Luís Pereira <luis.artur.pere...@gmail.com>:
> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brendan Perrine <walteror...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> The only reason I see to have both is if you want to triage bugs or
> test the quality of both the Qt4 and Qt5 versions.
> > For me, that's precisely the point. It's not about the user neither
> > packagers, it's about development.
> >
> >> The work around for testing or triaging bugs on Qt4 and Qt5 at the same
> time might be to dual boot or to use a virtual machine or another computer.
> >
> > For me, they are not good options and I will end up only working in
> > one version. With a big enough team that wouldn't be a problem. But
> > with a small team like the one we have I think the Qt4 version will
> > become "abandon-aware". LXQt 0.7 was the first "stable" release, if
> > the 0.8 turns LXQt Qt4 in "abandon-aware" we might not get user trust.
> > Qt5 is great and we should focus the active development in it. But
> > there is a share of "weak machines" that can't afford LXQt Qt5.
> >
> > --
> > Luís Pereira
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Want excitement?
> > Manually upgrade your production database.
> > When you want reliability, choose Perforce
> > Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
> >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lxde-list mailing list
> > Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want excitement?
> Manually upgrade your production database.
> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Lxde-list mailing list
> Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce.
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Lxde-list mailing list
Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
