On Sunday, 18 December 2022 03:25:14 -03 coroberti wrote: > > What matters to me is that those were the last AVX-incapable CPUs, which > > allow us to assume that AVX2 is present. > > Dear Thiago and Tuukka, > It seems that you are working under an assumption that if the HW allows it, > users will upgrade their Mac OS.
Yes, we are. More importantly, we are assuming that even if they put upgrading off for a while (I haven't upgraded to 13.x yet), they will get there at some point before Apple stops issuing security updates for that OS. I use my Mac Mini in a professional basis, which means I am *required* by company policy to keep it up-to-date with security fixes. My previous Mac Mini (an early 2012 model) had to be returned back to IT for recycling when Apple stopped offering updates for it. > This is not how it works in reality, sorry. > > Many, if not most, Mac users are upgrading only once. > They upgrade, see how their content-editing, multimedia, etc. software > is ruined by their first upgrade; > next, they work with software vendors to restore their applications > back to some working state, get the lesson and ... do not touch it forever. That's bad. But we all know who's to blame here, in both arguments: Apple. > Try to listen to the people that work with the real, live customers > like Nuno and me. We have. The decision is that we need to make a cut and move on, eventually. There's only so much resource available for handling different generations. We decided to adopt Apple's own end-of-life as ours. > Please, add one more old Mac OS release to the supported list to be > more realistic, so it will be not a thin three releases but at least four. At this point, since my AVX2 changes have been postponed to 6.6, I don't mind restoring 10.15 support in 6.5, as it doesn't impact me and the improvements I plan to add. So I won't object. But I can't speak for Qt Company's resource commitment, with the need to *add* 13.x to their test base. I think we all agree that MUST be tested. Given a finite resource allocation, something will need to give and they will have to make that choice. Moreover, 6.5 is one of their LTS. They have to make a choice whether they want to keep 10.15 in support for the lifetime of that LTS. That would mean they'd *end* support 2.5 years after Apple last provided a security update for the OS. Their own networking requirements may imply they *can't* have that OS in the CI because of its lack of security fixes. I don't know what it takes for them to allow that; I can only tell you that if Intel were hosting such systems, those would need to be in a special lab with no direct Internet access, which means they couldn't be part of a CI. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
