On 2014-07-15, at 04:53 PM, Adam Light wrote:
> Getting back to a thread from a few months ago
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Jake Petroules
> wrote:
>
> Pretty much the only thing you lose with ARC is that it's 64-bit only and
> thus using it means waving goodbye to 32-bit Qt o
Getting back to a thread from a few months ago
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Jake Petroules <
jake.petrou...@petroules.com> wrote:
>
> Pretty much the only thing you lose with ARC is that it's 64-bit only and
> thus using it means waving goodbye to 32-bit Qt on OS X completely. I don't
>
On 2014-03-24, at 06:16 PM, Kuba Ober wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>
>> I agree with many of these arguments, and I was in favor of setting the
>> minimum supported version to 10.7 back when we started Qt 5 development. But
>> we did make the decision to support
On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
> I agree with many of these arguments, and I was in favor of setting the
> minimum supported version to 10.7 back when we started Qt 5 development. But
> we did make the decision to support 10.6. The implementation effort has been
> made and t
> Dropping support for 10.6, and making it possible to clean up that code,
> would in the mid-term free up resources that would make
> it possible to spend more resources on better OS X integration in general
> (or, would make the existing resources more efficient in doing so)?
That was the impl
On Jan 26, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Robert Knight wrote:
>> In regards to users of Mac OS Qt applications: I’m am extremely confident
>> that more Mac OS applications would be/have been written in Qt,
>> if the priority for native looking widget support was higher. Mac OS users
>> are notorious for t
> In regards to users of Mac OS Qt applications: I’m am extremely confident
> that more Mac OS applications would be/have been written in Qt,
> if the priority for native looking widget support was higher. Mac OS users
> are notorious for their attention to detail and noticing a non-native L&F.
>
>> XP was introduced in 2001. It’s still supported. Mac OS 10.6 was
>> introduced in 2009. I understand the desire to get rid of the messiness
>> under the hood, but I think it should be considered that it cuts out users
>> on hardware platforms not so much up to date.
>
>
> Right but the differenc
On sexta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2014 09:37:57, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> Why not just freeze the Qt development for 10.6? After all, developing for
> 10.6 will still be possible with Qt 5.3. I don’t see any problem here. It’s
> not that the code will get removed from the repo; it is only that no new
>
On 24/01/2014, at 17.36, Alexis Menard wrote:
>>
>> Again let's balance the cost of the maintenance of the code of 10.6 vs
>> supporting few users stuck in the past? If they must stick in the past for
>> various reasons (financial or others) then they can just use Qt4, it works
>> just fine f
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jan Farø wrote:
>
> On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø wrote:
>
>>
>> I don’t think anybody has mentioned the lack of ability to upgrade
>> hardware - mostly because of financial issues, I suppose. 1
> On 23 Jan 2014, at 21:16, Jan Farø wrote:
>
> I don’t think anybody has mentioned the lack of ability to upgrade hardware -
> mostly because of financial issues, I suppose. 10.6 is as far as I know the
> last Mac OS to support 32 bit systems. Previous versions of my own software
> supported
On sexta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2014 06:20:23, Jan Farø wrote:
> Worldwide: http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201212-201312-bar (Win7:
> 52%, XP: 22%, Mac OS: 7%)
>
> Denmark: http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-DK-monthly-201212-201312-bar (Win7:
> 53%, Mac OS: 16%, iOS: 8.5%) Denmark is a coun
On sexta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2014 03:16:54, Jan Farø wrote:
> XP was introduced in 2001. It’s still supported.
We had a thread on that too.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a di
On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard wrote:
>
> XP was introduced in 2001. It’s still supported. Mac OS 10.6 was introduced
> in 2009. I understand the desire to get rid of the messiness under the hood,
> but I think it should be considered that it cuts out users on hardware
> platforms not
On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø wrote:
>
> I don’t think anybody has mentioned the lack of ability to upgrade hardware -
> mostly because of financial issues, I suppose. 10.6 is as far as I know the
> last Mac OS to support 3
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2014, at 23.59, development-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
>
>
> If you do the math from the data available here
> http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
> (that’s December 2013), 10.6 acco
On 23/01/2014, at 23.59, development-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
>
>> If you do the math from the data available here
>> http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
>> (that’s December 2013), 10.6 accounts for slightly less than 20% of all the
>> OS
On 2014-01-23, at 11:45 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 23 de janeiro de 2014 15:15:16, Robert Knight wrote:
>> As for the reason why usage of OS X 10.6 is still high - I think that
>> is down to awareness of the need to upgrade and the effort/time vs.
>> perceived benefits, as well
On quinta-feira, 23 de janeiro de 2014 15:15:16, Robert Knight wrote:
> As for the reason why usage of OS X 10.6 is still high - I think that
> is down to awareness of the need to upgrade and the effort/time vs.
> perceived benefits, as well as hardware compatibility issues. Once
> browsers (FF, Ch
> If you do the math from the data available here
> http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
> (that’s December 2013), 10.6 accounts for slightly less than 20% of all the
> OS X versions. Let’s suppose those numbers reflect the reality.
For our app at
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> On 22/01/14 9:02 , Ziller Eike wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø
>> wrote:
>>> 5.3:
>>>
>>> - Remove support from binary packages - No CI = In practice,
>>> deprecated, so let's be explicit about it for 5.3
>>>
>>>
On 22/01/14 9:02 , Ziller Eike wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø
> wrote:
>> 5.3:
>>
>> - Remove support from binary packages - No CI = In practice,
>> deprecated, so let's be explicit about it for 5.3
>>
>> 5.4
>>
>> - Bump the dev branch to 5.4 - Remove 10.6 code as see f
On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> On 21/01/14 13:36 , Sorvig Morten wrote:
>> I realize that if I’m the only one who want’s to keep supporting 10.6
>> then that’s not going to work. The most important thing to me is to
>> have a somewhat predictable deprecation plan. For exam
On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:21, deDietrich Gabriel
> wrote:
>> The truth is, market share doesn’t mean anything. Point in case: According
>> to the link above, OS X is less than 8% of the total market share. Should we
>> then drop the Mac port co
On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Mohamed Fawzi wrote:
>
> On 21 Jan 2014, at 14:25, Jake Petroules
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>>>
>>> That depends on how much time we spend releasing Qt :)
>>>
>>> I
On 21 janv. 2014, at 14:25, Jake Petroules wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>>
>> That depends on how much time we spend releasing Qt :)
>>
>> I realize that if I’m the only one who want’s to keep supporting 10.
On Tuesday 21 January 2014, Sorvig Morten wrote:
> Obviously it’s not going to stand forever, especially when seeing the
> strong opinions from the Qt on Mac developers. We are moving in the
> direction of not supporting 10.6. The 5.3 binary packages will not support
> it. QtWebkit lives its own li
On 21 Jan 2014, at 13:20, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
>
>
> On 21/01/14 11:23 , Sorvig Morten wrote:
>> I agree with many of these arguments, and I was in favor of setting
>> the minimum supported version to 10.7 back when we started Qt 5
>> development. But we did make the decision to support 10.6
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:21, deDietrich Gabriel
wrote:
> The truth is, market share doesn’t mean anything. Point in case: According to
> the link above, OS X is less than 8% of the total market share. Should we
> then drop the Mac port completely?
Good question! Possible arguments for not discont
On 21 Jan 2014, at 14:25, Jake Petroules
mailto:jake.petrou...@petroules.com>>
wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten
mailto:morten.sor...@digia.com>> wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann
mailto:simon.hausm...@digia.com>> wrote:
That depends on how much time we spend r
On 21/01/14 13:36 , Sorvig Morten wrote:
> I realize that if I’m the only one who want’s to keep supporting 10.6
> then that’s not going to work. The most important thing to me is to
> have a somewhat predictable deprecation plan. For example (and at the
> risk of making this example “the plan”):
>
On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>
> That depends on how much time we spend releasing Qt :)
>
> I realize that if I’m the only one who want’s to keep supporting 10.6 then
> that’s not going to work. The most important thing t
On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 21. January 2014 10.23.22 Sorvig Morten wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:32, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>>> On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> wrote:
>>>
On 20/01/14 21:21 , deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
[snip]
> I only work on my little things, and 10.6 is a burden for me. So, you
> who work out there, that see people using Qt 5 apps, tell me, is it
> worth it?
I'm 100% with Gabriel here.
- The 20% marked share doesn't mean anything without details
On 21/01/14 11:23 , Sorvig Morten wrote:
> I agree with many of these arguments, and I was in favor of setting
> the minimum supported version to 10.7 back when we started Qt 5
> development. But we did make the decision to support 10.6. The
> implementation effort has been made and that decision
On Tuesday 21. January 2014 09.32.45 Simon Hausmann wrote:
[...]
> I personally like the suggestion brought up elsewhere of keeping things as
> they are for Qt 5.3 and dropping 10.6 from the CI system and supported
> platforms for 5.3 - while simultaneously reviewing and approving patches by
> othe
On Tuesday 21. January 2014 10.23.22 Sorvig Morten wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:32, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
> >> On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> >>> On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >
On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:32, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>> On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn w
On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> >>> The CI system is still building for OSX 10
On 21 Jan 2014, at 8:01 AM, Sarajärvi Tony wrote:
> You are talking about dropping 10.6 support, whereas we are dropping 10.7 as
> well from the CI.
> I know support and CI aren't the same thing, but you might want to object our
> plan which as of now hasn't received any criticism.
I'm surprise
> > >
> > > On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > >> On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> > > >>> The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
> > > >>> Given the fact
.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Remove OSX 10.6 Build?
>
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > >> On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Ku
>
> On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> >>> The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
> >>> Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 n
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>>> The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
>>> Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shouldn’t the
> Le 21 Jan 2014 à 6:45 am, Olivier Goffart a écrit :
>
>> On Monday 20 January 2014 19:55:05 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>> On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
The CI system is still building for OSX
On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 20:45:50, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> It is true that building on OSX 10.6 still require GCC 4.2 which is a bit
> old. If it is possible to build with clang and target OSX 10.6 that would
> be great.
>
> We could revisit the supported compiler.
> Personally, th
On Monday 20 January 2014 19:55:05 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> > > The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
> > > Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shou
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 13:21 -0500, Jake Petroules wrote:
> Well, as I said, it's very much "Apple's XP" -- we'd like to get rid
> of it, and it's slowly on it's way out but still very much relevant to
> keep around as a deployment target for the time being (just as XP is).
http://www.netmarketshar
On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> > The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
> > Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shouldn’t the build for
> > 10.6 be removed, and ideally replaced with a bui
Well, as I said, it's very much "Apple's XP" -- we'd like to get rid of it, and
it's slowly on it's way out but still very much relevant to keep around as a
deployment target for the time being (just as XP is).
Firefox and Chrome dropped support for 10.5 only relatively recently (late
2012?), I
On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 13:01:22, Jake Petroules wrote:
> I say: definitely not, and Mac devs aren't the people to ask, the market
> share is.
I'm asking the Mac devs because I expect that they know the pulse of the Mac
community.
> Snow Leopard is being called "Apple's XP" for a
On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:52, André Somers wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Op 20 jan. 2014 om 17:36 heeft Kurt Pattyn het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
>> Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shouldn’t the build for 10.6
>> be removed, and ideally repl
I say: definitely not, and Mac devs aren't the people to ask, the market share
is.
Snow Leopard is being called "Apple's XP" for a good reason, and many (most?)
popular apps continue to support 10.6 at this point.
It will die eventually but it is not yet time. How about we reevaluate a few
mon
On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2014 17:36:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
> Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shouldn’t the build for 10.6
> be removed, and ideally replaced with a build for OSX 10.9?
Only if we decide to stop supporting 10.
Hi,
> Op 20 jan. 2014 om 17:36 heeft Kurt Pattyn het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
> Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shouldn’t the build for 10.6
> be removed, and ideally replaced with a build for OSX 10.9?
Why should it be one to the
On 20 Jan 2014, at 17:36, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
> Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shouldn’t the build for 10.6
> be removed, and ideally replaced with a build for OSX 10.9?
I’d prefer the CI to build for the oldest OS X version to be
The CI system is still building for OSX 10.6.
Given the fact that OSX is at version 10.9 now, shouldn’t the build for 10.6 be
removed, and ideally replaced with a build for OSX 10.9?
Cheers,
Kurt
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
58 matches
Mail list logo