> On 1 Dec 2025, at 21:57, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, 1 December 2025 11:51:31 Pacific Standard Time Scott Bloom wrote: >>> Anyway, I think the proposal I made for VS2026 still makes sense for the >>> Qt Project: >>> * 2026-2027: toolchains 14.44 (VS2022), 14.50, sliding 14.51-53 >>> * 2028-2029: toolchains 14.50, 14.54, sliding 14.55-57 >>> * 2029-2030: toolchains 14.54, 14.58, sliding 14.59-61 >>> >>> This would mean Qt 6.12 still supports VS2022, but Qt 6.16 (Oct 2028) does >>> not. >> >> -- >> Just my 2 bits from a user POV. >> >> Please allow 18 to 24 months before you REQUIRE 2026 for building a Qt >> project. Meaning any new C++ features that 2026 has that 2022's latest >> patch does not support be held off in use in the public API for up to two >> years after the release of 2026. > > From the plan above, VS2026 won't be required until 2028, specifically > starting > with Qt 6.15. That's over 24 months from today. > > But I agree on sufficient notice, which means we should make this decision in > time for the Qt 6.11 release announcement. > > It's a different story to about adding content to our headers that requires > VS2026. At that point, it won't be about just Visual C++. It's highly > unlikely > the compilers holding us back now will have been updated in 24 months time. > > But I repeat we should add new, optional features that depend on C++20 or > even > 23. People who won't upgrade simply will have to settle for doing things the > way they're doing them today. I personally do not plan on writing any non- > concept code for any new template function.
The decision so far is to not require post-17 C++ functionality until the usage of those brings substantial benefits to _users_ of Qt. The most up-to-date information we have from users, customers, and from some of the compiler developers we work with and that keep track of this kind of thing, indicate that C++20 is not at all mainstream in the real world. I don’t know if things have moved significantly, it’s been a few years. Yes, for optional features, like providing convenience overloads, using C++20 or 23 is fine. For primary features it is not. Volker -- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
