[Development] MAINTAINERS, your action needed: Qt 5.9.3 change files

Hi all, There is still quite many changes files under construction, see https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/q/message:%22file+for+Qt+5.9.3%22,n,z Please finalize ongoing ones now; we are targeting to get Qt 5.9.3 out during next week so we need to get final content in as soon as possible. +2

Re: [Development] MAINTAINERS, your action needed: Qt 5.10 reviews (was: Qt 5.9.3 change files)

Jani Heikkinen (8 November 2017 11:29) poked all about 5.9.3's change files. I note that many 5.10 API reviews [0] also remain unresolved - indeed, six appear to be untouched by anyone but me: * qt3d, qtx11extras, qtandroidextras, qtscxml, qtnetworkauth, qtremoteobjects Four have had a +1

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 01:06:51 PST Roland Winklmeier wrote: > One question: How likely are the chances that the prebuilt MSVC 32 bit > packages will be built with MSVC 2017 instead of 2015? As far as I know, > the v140 toolset in VS 2015 and the v141 toolset in VS 2017 are binary >

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

On 8 November 2017 at 15:24, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 01:06:51 PST Roland Winklmeier wrote: > > One question: How likely are the chances that the prebuilt MSVC 32 bit > > packages will be built with MSVC 2017 instead of 2015? As far as I

Re: [Development] Dropping of MSVC 2013

>From: Shawn Rutledge >> On 18 Oct 2017, at 07:34, Jani Heikkinen wrote: >> We discussed about this last spring and then the decision was that 5.10 is >> too early but 5.11 might be possible. > So can we get that done soon on dev branch? Sorry, no.

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

On 8 November 2017 at 21:27, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > 09.11.2017, 00:20, "Thiago Macieira" : > > There was another thread since then that discussed that. I remember the > > conclusion, but not the details. > > Here it is: > >

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 12:54:16 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote: > OK, thanks anyway. I remember this discussion: > http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2017-April/029762.html > > That seemed to conclude that there should be no problem mixing 2015 with > 2017. Was just wondering if

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

09.11.2017, 00:20, "Thiago Macieira" : > On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 12:54:16 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote: >>  OK, thanks anyway. I remember this discussion: >>  http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2017-April/029762.html >> >>  That seemed to conclude that

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 10:21:05 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote: > On 8 November 2017 at 15:24, Thiago Macieira > > wrote: > > On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 01:06:51 PST Roland Winklmeier wrote: > > > One question: How likely are the chances that the prebuilt MSVC 32

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

On 8 November 2017 at 19:31, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 10:21:05 PST Mat Sutcliffe wrote: > > Could you please elaborate on the problems that were found? > > Sorry, I don't remember. Probably something related to the fact that > constexpr >

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 beta 3 released

2017-11-01 11:59 GMT+01:00 Jani Heikkinen : > > Qt 5.10 beta3 is out. Instructions how to get the release are here: > https://wiki.qt.io/How_to_get_snapshot_via_online_installer. > Hi Jani, first of all thanks a lot for this new way of shipping beta versions. It is so

[Development] HEADS-UP: Branching '5.9.3' completed

Hi, Branching from '5.9' to '5.9.3' is now completed. From now on '5.9' is for changes targeting to '5.9.4' release. Plan is to get remaining Qt 5.9.3 changes files in '5.9.3' as well as possible fixes for open blockers & then get the Qt 5.9.3 release out. Target for the release is week 46 so

Re: [Development] Dropping of MSVC 2013

Hi, We really should think about some more or less automatic policy about supported platforms. Discussing that on each release is not great nor for us, nor for our users. It takes time, to discuss it. I guess that from outside it is looking as a complete chaos, especially in context of