On 21 Jan 2014, at 14:25, Jake Petroules <jake.petrou...@petroules.com<mailto:jake.petrou...@petroules.com>> wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Sorvig Morten <morten.sor...@digia.com<mailto:morten.sor...@digia.com>> wrote: On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:51, Simon Hausmann <simon.hausm...@digia.com<mailto: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 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”): 5.3 - Remove support from binary packages. 5.4 - 10.6 support is deprecated. 5.5? - Remove support. I also think that it looks reasonable, but I would also find announcing now that 5.4 drops 10.6 support ok (I don't see this big need for "deprecated but still there" if one knows long enough before). Anyway another thing (with ARC support) is also C++11. Is it clear when we will begin to require C++11? Because supporting C++11 in 10.6 is *very* tricky (one might try to ship libc++, but system library will still use libstdc++ and I am not sure if binary compatibility with the version shipped in 10.6 is guaranteed. Fawzi I think this is relatively reasonable. By 5.5 (mid-2015, right?) we will have or almost have OS X 10.11 which is three versions into the OS X free pricing model. Given the fast uptake of OS X Mavericks in just a few short months, by then it seems to me that it will be the ideal time to say goodbye to the last of the Leopards. The gap between Snow Leopard and Lion is also probably the most technically significant between any two recent versions of OS X, so when it's 10.7's time to go we may not even need any code changes. [...]
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
