On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 01:34, Konstantin Ritt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tuuka, > > By that link I didn't mean QTBUG-102962 exactly, but 23 matching bugs for > a single component (which is not even one of the top-wanted components). > On vanilla 6.2.4, QCamera simply doesn't work on many Android devices. All > these issues were resolved for 6.2.5. Coincident? > > > We are no holding back on bug fixes, though. > > so the fix is in Qt 6.3.1 > Technically you aren't. But in fact you are! > That is what I called "please stick to unstable, semi-functional versions > of Qt, test them and report bugs". > 6.3 brought a bunch of new bugs and regressions, and some of them still > aren't fixed. As for example, look at -- > https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-98964?jql=text%20~%20%22Binding%20on%20contentItem%20is%20not%20deferred%20as%20requested%20by%20the%20DeferredPropertyNames%20class%20info%20because%20one%20or%20more%20of%20its%20sub-objects%20contain%20an%20id%22 > -- (and not only at QTBUG-98964). > Fixed in 6.3.0? Sure it is. But it is still reproducible in dev... > Maybe it is not really important? Well, I personally can live with it. > Until I get a hang/crash report in release due to this issue... > > And that's just a single example of many. > Okay, perhaps I should stick back to 6.2.4, keep my eye on commits > picked-up to mysterious 6.2.5 and apply them manually. Thanks, > cherry-picking monkey is a job I was dreaming of! > > When I chose Qt for developing my apps, it was "Code less, create more[, > deploy everywhere]". > I was ok with building Qt from sources when you started selling binaries > to your commercial folks. Waste of an hour of my machine power per several > months was not a big price for stability update. > But we definitely didn't choose to be your free testing crowd! > > > Regards, > Unhappy monkey > As much as I dislike The Qt Company unfriendly behaviour toward LGPL users and the fact that IMHO The Qt Company seems to be taking decisions that should be taken by the Qt Project, I have to say that Qt did not have any form of LTS before Qt 5.6 and I do not remember seeing any complaints about it during Qt 4 or early Qt 5 era. The biggest issue was The Qt Company dropping open source support for Qt 5.15 while Qt 6 was far from ready. There was no LTS during Qt 4, but Qt 4 did get support for at least a couple of Qt 5 releases. Thankfully KDE saved the day by having kde/5.15 branch IMHO the fact that Qt .1 or .2 releases are seemingly never usable for some users because of new bugs and regressions is a symptom of quality issues that should not be solved by an LTS. My 2 cts Benjamin
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
