On 2021 Jan 27, at 16:56, Shawn Rutledge
mailto:shawn.rutle...@qt.io>> wrote:
touch->mouse synthesis (!) which is rarely used
Of course I wrote that backwards: they tried to rely on mouse->touch synthesis,
which is rarely used; and there’s more than one way to solve their use case,
but the
On 2021 Jan 27, at 16:39, Volker Hilsheimer
mailto:volker.hilshei...@qt.io>> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2020, at 09:48, Lars Knoll
mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2020, at 18:49, Thiago Macieira
mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 December 2020 02:00:29 PST Benjamin
> On 10 Dec 2020, at 09:48, Lars Knoll wrote:
>
>> On 9 Dec 2020, at 18:49, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 9 December 2020 02:00:29 PST Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
>>> Back to the topic, wouldn't it be acceptable to break BC before 6.2 release?
>>> I mean Qt 6 isn't really complete
> On 9 Dec 2020, at 18:49, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 9 December 2020 02:00:29 PST Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
>> Back to the topic, wouldn't it be acceptable to break BC before 6.2 release?
>> I mean Qt 6 isn't really complete until 6.2, so if a break is required it
>> kind of makes
On Wednesday, 9 December 2020 02:00:29 PST Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> Back to the topic, wouldn't it be acceptable to break BC before 6.2 release?
> I mean Qt 6 isn't really complete until 6.2, so if a break is required it
> kind of makes sense to make it happen before everyone has made the switch
> On 8 Dec 2020, at 22:32, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, hit enter too fast
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 18:31, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:47, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Aren't LTS a commercial
Il 09/12/20 09:13, Allan Sandfeld Jensen ha scritto:
1. Live with it or find a work around
2. Break BC after 6.0.0 (we have don that before, though only when accidently
breaking BC in a point release)
3. Break BC again "soonish", like after 6.2 or 6.5
Any other options?
These are not mutually
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 10:17, Alexander Nassian <
nass...@bitshift-dynamics.com> wrote:
> 4) Don‘t release a major version that lacks half of the modules of the
> prev version in a hurry for no reason.
>
Especially just after deciding to remove the concept of LTS for open
source users,
4) Don‘t release a major version that lacks half of the modules of the prev
version in a hurry for no reason.
> Am 09.12.2020 um 09:15 schrieb Allan Sandfeld Jensen :
>
> So, we can:
>
> 1. Live with it or find a work around
> 2. Break BC after 6.0.0 (we have don that before, though only when
So, we can:
1. Live with it or find a work around
2. Break BC after 6.0.0 (we have don that before, though only when accidently
breaking BC in a point release)
3. Break BC again "soonish", like after 6.2 or 6.5
Any other options?
Best regards
'Allan
Hi,
Il 08/12/20 23:55, Kevin Kofler via Development ha scritto:
Raising the bar: apart from some cases of API problems in 6.0, would it
be feasible to do a BC break after every LTS? We might find more
annoyances we want to fix.
IMHO, the compatibility breaks at every major (first-digit, e.g.,
On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 08:32:51 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> Hm, every third release is an LTS: 5.9, 5.12, 5.15, perhaps 6.2.
>
> So, that’s every 1.5 years if we stick to the current release cadence.
Which means it either can't be every LTS or the cadence would need to change.
If it's
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:44, Volker Hilsheimer
wrote:
>
>
> > On 8 Dec 2020, at 16:28, Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 01:55:12 PST Giuseppe D'Angelo via
> Development
> > wrote:
> >> Raising the bar: apart from some cases of API problems in 6.0, would it
> >> be
> On 8 Dec 2020, at 16:28, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 01:55:12 PST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>> Raising the bar: apart from some cases of API problems in 6.0, would it
>> be feasible to do a BC break after every LTS? We might find more
>>
On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 01:55:12 PST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> Raising the bar: apart from some cases of API problems in 6.0, would it
> be feasible to do a BC break after every LTS? We might find more
> annoyances we want to fix.
So long LTSs don't happen more often than
Il 07/12/20 10:24, Volker Hilsheimer ha scritto:
If we decide here to break BC before 6.1 because the available workarounds [1]
are not applicable or not something we want to live with until Qt 7, then we
might just as well go “all in” with such changes (as long as we maintain source
Hi,
On 07-12-2020 10:24, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
Hi,
Given the scale of Qt 6.0 it’s perhaps no surprise that in spite of careful
reviews, we are seeing the first API issues popping up, fixing of which would
require a breakage of binary compatibility. For example:
On Monday, 7 December 2020 01:24:22 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> If we decide here to break BC before 6.1 because the available workarounds
> [1] are not applicable or not something we want to live with until Qt 7,
> then we might just as well go “all in” with such changes (as long as we
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
