On 2014-07-15, at 04:53 PM, Adam Light acli...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Sorvig Morten morten.sor...@digia.com 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
On 2014-03-24, at 06:16 PM, Kuba Ober k...@mareimbrium.org wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Sorvig Morten morten.sor...@digia.com 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
On Jan 26, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Robert Knight robertkni...@gmail.com 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
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 LF.
On 23 Jan 2014, at 21:16, Jan Farø jan.fa...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jan Farø jan.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard men...@kde.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø jan.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
I don’t think anybody has mentioned the lack of ability to upgrade
hardware - mostly
On 24/01/2014, at 17.36, Alexis Menard men...@kde.org 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
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
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 difference is that
On 22/01/14 9:02 , Ziller Eike wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø
tor.arne.ves...@digia.com 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
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø tor.arne.ves...@digia.com wrote:
On 22/01/14 9:02 , Ziller Eike wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø
tor.arne.ves...@digia.com wrote:
5.3:
- Remove support from binary packages - No CI = In practice,
deprecated, so let's be
If you do the math from the data available here
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10qpcustomd=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 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,
On 2014-01-23, at 11:45 AM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com 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.
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=10qpcustomd=0
(that’s December 2013), 10.6 accounts for slightly less than 20% of all the
OS X
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø jan.fa...@gmail.com 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=10qpcustomd=0
(that’s December
On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard men...@kde.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø jan.fa...@gmail.com 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
On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard men...@kde.org wrote:
snip
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
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
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 country
On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø tor.arne.ves...@digia.com 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
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 surprised
On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com 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
On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:32, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com wrote:
On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com wrote:
On Monday 20 January 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 20 de janeiro
On Tuesday 21. January 2014 10.23.22 Sorvig Morten wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:32, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com wrote:
On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com
wrote:
On Monday 20 January
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
other
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 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 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com wrote:
On Tuesday 21. January 2014 10.23.22 Sorvig Morten wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:32, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com wrote:
On Monday 20. January 2014 20.21.14 deDietrich Gabriel wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55
On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten morten.sor...@digia.com wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com 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
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 21 Jan 2014, at 14:25, Jake Petroules
jake.petrou...@petroules.commailto:jake.petrou...@petroules.com
wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten
morten.sor...@digia.commailto:morten.sor...@digia.com wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:21, deDietrich Gabriel gabriel.dedietr...@digia.com
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
On 21 Jan 2014, at 13:20, Tor Arne Vestbø tor.arne.ves...@digia.com 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
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 life
On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Mohamed Fawzi fawzi.moha...@digia.com wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 14:25, Jake Petroules jake.petrou...@petroules.com
wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten morten.sor...@digia.com wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann
On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Sorvig Morten morten.sor...@digia.com wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:21, deDietrich Gabriel gabriel.dedietr...@digia.com
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
On 20 Jan 2014, at 17:36, Kurt Pattyn pattyn.k...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
Op 20 jan. 2014 om 17:36 heeft Kurt Pattyn pattyn.k...@gmail.com 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
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 10.6
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
On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:52, André Somers an...@familiesomers.nl wrote:
Hi,
Op 20 jan. 2014 om 17:36 heeft Kurt Pattyn pattyn.k...@gmail.com 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
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
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 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 build for
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).
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, shouldn’t
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, this
Le 21 Jan 2014 à 6:45 am, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com 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
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com 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,
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com
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
: [Development] Remove OSX 10.6 Build?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com
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
On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
