On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:40:44PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Donnerstag, dem 17.08.2023 um 07:24 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > I'm not necessarily against it, but the argument for keeping that > > code is that it might be helpful to do a bisect of Qt to figure out a > > Qt bug. The reason we require a higher Qt 5.x is that *some* things > > don't work well, but if I recall correctly most things do, so it is > > possible to compile and test. > > But this would mean, in consequence, that if we implement something > within the 2.4 cycle, we would have to make sure it still compiles with > Qt < 5.2.
Good point. I was thinking that we would not take on that responsibility but just "hope" that it would still compile with it. But indeed that decreases the benefit of keeping the code. > I got to this while pondering about the URL link warning dialog. > Implementing this dialog (the way I proposed it) would mean we'd need > to roll another self-baked dialog only for the sake of keeping it > compilable with Qt < 5.2. I definitely don't think we should do that. I didn't know that it wouldn't be compilable. I just thought that it would compile but several things wouldn't work well. > Generally I would not expect to find significant bugs in Qt 5.2 that > are not in Qt 5.0 and 5.1 (on the contrary; Qt 5 has not been very > stable before 5.2). Good to know. Thanks for your responses. +1 to commit from me. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
