Hi,
> On 10 May 2017, at 13:05, Robin Burchell wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Responding to just the LTS news: I think that this is tentatively good
> news. I worry, though, on a releasing front whether it is realistic to
> consider supporting now two LTS branches, plus potentially 2-3 normal
> branches a
On May 10, 2017, at 12:51, Robin Burchell wrote:
> You mention that this is required due to optimizing the way that event
> delivery works internally in QQuickWindow -- have you considered
> restoring the old behavior there (despite it not being ideal, I think
> there's no disagreement there) po
Hi Lars,
> 5.6.3 is planned for Summer (current plan is August), close to 18 months
> after the first release. So yes, the 'very strict’ mode would be coming
> somewhat early, but more by 6 months than a full year.
Or to put it this way: 5.6 LTS guarantees, that all serious bugs found
during the
On 10/05/17 11:25, Lars Knoll wrote:
Hi,
So we are now planning to make Qt 5.9 a LTS release. It's been 3
minor releases since 5.6 and a lot of good things have happened in
Qt, so this should be very good news to those of our users that don't
always want to be on the bleeding edge but are lo
Hi,
Responding to just the LTS news: I think that this is tentatively good
news. I worry, though, on a releasing front whether it is realistic to
consider supporting now two LTS branches, plus potentially 2-3 normal
branches at the same time, especially since we don't yet have firm proof
that we a
Hi,
Let me start off by saying that I agree with you that this is a bad
asymmetry, both for the end user, and for our own internal purposes --
which appears to be your primary motivator. I'm happy to see this
addressed.
On the other hand, this is a rather large change in behavior (whereby as
I un
Hello,
I'd like to remind everybody that we have the Call for Presentations for Qt
World Summit 2017 open.
https://www.qtworldsummit.com/call-for-presentations/
If you have anything that might be interesting to the Qt world, please take the
time to submit your proposal.
Topics can range from ver
Hi Uwe,
thanks for the feedback on the plan. So far this is the general outline, and
some fine tuning can certainly be done. Would be good to hear more feedback
from others as well.
> On 10 May 2017, at 10:56, Uwe Rathmann wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2017 09:21:37 +0200, André Hartmann wrote:
>
On Wed, 10 May 2017 09:21:37 +0200, André Hartmann wrote:
> From Lars original mail:
>
> > Of course, we will also continue to support 5.6 for the promised
> > three years. We are planning to release 5.6.3 in Summer, after which
> > 5.6 will move into the 'very strict' mode as defined in the
Oswald Buddenhagen (4 May 2017 18:35)
> i'll say outright that you can't be part of the qt supermodule and yet
> have independent releases. while that was the plan once upon a time, the
> whole release infrastructure simply doesn't deliver, and even just
> diverging branch names are a pita (proved
The upgrade just finished. Happy bugfixing.
--
Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Alex Blasche
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 07:38
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Cc: Andrey Leman
> Subject
Hi Uwe,
On Tue, 09 May 2017 13:35:52 +, Lars Knoll wrote:
So we are now planning to make Qt 5.9 a LTS release. It's been 3 minor
releases since 5.6 and a lot of good things have happened in Qt, so this
should be very good news to those of our users that don't always want to
be on the bleed
On Tue, 09 May 2017 13:35:52 +, Lars Knoll wrote:
> So we are now planning to make Qt 5.9 a LTS release. It's been 3 minor
> releases since 5.6 and a lot of good things have happened in Qt, so this
> should be very good news to those of our users that don't always want to
> be on the bleeding
13 matches
Mail list logo
