On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 04:40:24 PST Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> I do agree that we should avoid dropping configurations in patch releases.
> However, we should be pragmatic and provide the set that is most valuable
> for the users and still feasible to maintain. So in my opinion adding
>
Hi,
I do agree that we should avoid dropping configurations in patch releases.
However, we should be pragmatic and provide the set that is most valuable for
the users and still feasible to maintain. So in my opinion adding something and
removing another is fine if that is what best serves our
> -Original Message-
> From: Development On Behalf Of
> The mail did not state 5.12.x. Hence it was under the assumption "as always"
> with the next minor release.
As the person who initiated this, I have a bit of an ambivalent view point.
Fact is, we have always made those changes for
Am Mi., 6. Feb. 2019 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Jesus Fernandez <
jesus.fernan...@qt.io>:
>
> The original mail said nothing about 5.12.2. And I would remove support
> for both compilers in 5.13. Any 32 bits is an outdated platform.
>
>
>
32 bit is not only about platform. 32 bit applications still run
The mail did not state 5.12.x. Hence it was under the assumption "as always"
with the next minor release.
Maurice
> -Original Message-
> From: Jani Heikkinen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 12:54 PM
> To: Jesus Fernandez ; Maurice Kalinowski
> ; Simon Hausmann
> Cc:
Hi!
The original mail said nothing about 5.12.2. And I would remove support for
both compilers in 5.13. Any 32 bits is an outdated platform.
Best regards,
Jesús
From: Jani Heikkinen
Sent: 06 February 2019 12:54
To: Jesus Fernandez; Maurice Kalinowski; Simon
Hi!
>>And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot
>>stop providing them in 5.12.x.
I disagree. I agree we shouldn't do this kind of decisions without good reasons
but I don't see anything why we couldn't do this kind of changes if there is
good reasons. This is
> I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
Yes, I was referring to patch releases.
And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot
stop providing them in 5.12.x.
Best regards,
Jesús
From: Jani Heikkinen
Sent: 06
Hi,
As Simon already wrote this is affecting only prebuilt binary packages we
deliver and nothing else. It is true that we usually haven't touched (at least
removed) those in patch level releases but I don't see any big issue with doing
this now; UWP x86 msvc 2015 isn't that widely used and
I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
We’ve been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so far,
but not for patch level ones.
Maurice
From: Development On Behalf Of Simon
Hausmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Jesus Fernandez
Cc:
Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not
result in any changes in the git repos.
Simon
On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez
mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?
Best regards,
Jesús
Original
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?
Best regards,
Jesús
Original message
From: Harald Kjølberg
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
Hi,
As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented,
effective from Qt 5.12.2.
Cheers,
Harald
From: Development on behalf of Harald
Kjølberg
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development@qt-project.org"
Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping
Hi,
In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some
constructive and well deserved criticism):
We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and
it should be our
14 matches
Mail list logo
