Am Donnerstag, dem 17.08.2023 um 07:24 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > I'm not necessarily against it, but the argument for keeping that > code is that it might be helpful to do a bisect of Qt to figure out a > Qt bug. The reason we require a higher Qt 5.x is that *some* things > don't work well, but if I recall correctly most things do, so it is > possible to compile and test.
But this would mean, in consequence, that if we implement something within the 2.4 cycle, we would have to make sure it still compiles with Qt < 5.2. I got to this while pondering about the URL link warning dialog. Implementing this dialog (the way I proposed it) would mean we'd need to roll another self-baked dialog only for the sake of keeping it compilable with Qt < 5.2. Generally I would not expect to find significant bugs in Qt 5.2 that are not in Qt 5.0 and 5.1 (on the contrary; Qt 5 has not been very stable before 5.2). -- Jürgen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
