Dear all, I would like to propose that we release our LyX 2.3.0 alpha binaries for Mac and Windows with Qt 5.9.0beta1 and that we release our final LyX 2.3.0 binaries with the final release of Qt 5.9.0.
I think there is an advantage to releasing the final LyX version with the same Qt x.y version (here I am considering Qt 5.9beta1 and Qt 5.9 final the "same") as our pre-releases. I make this claim for a few reasons: - In the past, sometimes when we switched Qt versions, this involved switching versions of compilers, which caused complications (e.g. not being able to compile) and worse, bugs (either a bug from the new compiler or a bug in LyX that was exposed by the new computer and not caught because not much testing). - I consider Qt development snapshots to be quite stable. This is only based on my own observations. - (I'm not sure of this one) We are more likely to get a Qt bug that is a regression fixed. Normally, regressions with respect to the most recently released version are given higher priority than regressions with respect to the version before the previous released version. Now some arguments specific to the current situation of Qt development: - From what I understand, there will be no Qt 5.8.1 released. Instead, these improvements will only go in to Qt 5.9.0. See [1], in particular, the following quote: Unless there are significant security or other issues found, we are not planning to provide any patch releases for Qt 5.8 to make sure that we release Qt 5.9.0 with the planned schedule. Qt Support will assist customers to overcome possible issues found in Qt 5.8.0 release. - There will be Qt 5.9.z patch versions released [1]. This increases the probability that our LyX 2.3.1 will be released with the same major Qt version as 2.3.0, which minimizes regressions due to Qt. - The alpha release met its deadline, and the beta release was only two days late. Although historically Qt's releases have missed many of their targets, there seems to be an increased effort by Qt's development team to meet the deadlines on their release plan [2]. This leads me to think that even if there are delays and Qt 5.9.0 final is not released on 31 May, as currently planned, it will be released not too late after. Stephan and Uwe, do you forsee any problems with this plan? Would it be a lot of extra work to also compile our alpha and beta with Qt 5.8.0, but to not post these installers. This way, if we have a tester that reports a regression that no LyX developer can reproduce, at least we can ask them if they can reproduce with the LyX+5.8.0 installers (which we would just send privately and not post publicly)? This could tell us whether a regression is due to LyX or Qt. If there is agreement on the above plan, I would then like to ask if anyone could test LyX master with Qt 5.9beta going forward. There are no offline installers for Qt 5.9beta, but there are binaries available through the online installer. If you haven't used this yet, it is pretty easy (at least in my experience on Linux). The most painful part for me was answering questions before being able to download the online installer. I have only briefly tested Qt 5.9beta. At least, master compiles against it without error. My plan would be to test master with 5.9beta, and for work where I need a stable LyX, I would use 2.2.x branch compiled with 5.9beta. Scott [1] http://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/02/22/qt-roadmap-for-2017/ [2] https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.9_Release
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature