So, we can:
1. Live with it or find a work around
2. Break BC after 6.0.0 (we have don that before, though only when accidently
breaking BC in a point release)
3. Break BC again "soonish", like after 6.2 or 6.5
Any other options?
Best regards
'Allan
___
4) Don‘t release a major version that lacks half of the modules of the prev
version in a hurry for no reason.
> Am 09.12.2020 um 09:15 schrieb Allan Sandfeld Jensen :
>
> So, we can:
>
> 1. Live with it or find a work around
> 2. Break BC after 6.0.0 (we have don that before, though only when
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 10:17, Alexander Nassian <
nass...@bitshift-dynamics.com> wrote:
> 4) Don‘t release a major version that lacks half of the modules of the
> prev version in a hurry for no reason.
>
Especially just after deciding to remove the concept of LTS for open
source users, effectivel
Il 09/12/20 09:13, Allan Sandfeld Jensen ha scritto:
1. Live with it or find a work around
2. Break BC after 6.0.0 (we have don that before, though only when accidently
breaking BC in a point release)
3. Break BC again "soonish", like after 6.2 or 6.5
Any other options?
These are not mutually
> On 8 Dec 2020, at 22:32, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, hit enter too fast
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 18:31, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:47, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Aren't LTS a commercial only
On Wednesday, 9 December 2020 02:00:29 PST Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> Back to the topic, wouldn't it be acceptable to break BC before 6.2 release?
> I mean Qt 6 isn't really complete until 6.2, so if a break is required it
> kind of makes sense to make it happen before everyone has made the switch
>
Hi!
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:51, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
>
[snip]
> We do that already, it's just not enough for user-facing applications. I'll
> be more verbose on the bug report if needed.
The problem of options 2 and 3 are that they do not talk about
documentation. Documen
They've finally fixed the thread_local problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83562
So when can we require a fixed version of GCC or require Clang for MinGW?
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/234362
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/234364
https://coderev
> -Original Message-
> From: Development On Behalf Of
> Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> [...]
> > We do that already, it's just not enough for user-facing applications. I'll
> > be
> more verbose on the bug report if needed.
>
> The problem of options 2 and 3 are that they do not t
