Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On Sunday, 18 June 2017 11:16:41 PDT Marc Mutz wrote: > QStringView, at least, is full of MSVC 2013 work-arounds. The most > important is the requirement to use QStringViewLiteral instead of just > u"foo". And I'd rather we hadn't introduced yet another compatibility macro. Actually, please

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On 2017-06-16 08:43, Lars Knoll wrote: On 16 Jun 2017, at 08:36, Thiago Macieira wrote: On Thursday, 15 June 2017 23:16:30 PDT Lars Knoll wrote: We’re one month away from the feature freeze, and in July half of the developers are on vacation. So there’s relatively

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 23:16:30 PDT Lars Knoll wrote: > We’re one month away from the feature freeze, and in July half of the > developers are on vacation. So there’s relatively little benefit from > dropping 2013 now, as dev currently works with it. The difference is whether we have to put

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 03:00:02 PDT Marc Mutz wrote: > On Thursday 08 June 2017 08:45:24 Lars Knoll wrote: > > Sure, it's still important that we all know about the possible side > > effects > > of dropping a compiler version before making the decision. > > > > IMO, keeping VC++ 2013

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On quarta-feira, 7 de junho de 2017 23:47:35 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 8 June 2017 at 09:45, Lars Knoll wrote: > > IMO, keeping VC++ 2013 while dropping gcc 4.7 doesn't make too much sense. > > We either keep both or drop both. > Agreed on all points. I would drop both.

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

Am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2017, 12:00:02 CEST schrieb Marc Mutz: [...] > Thread ended inconclusive, but with two strong oppositions to drooping GCC > 4.7 and MSVC 2013 each. Note that this was before we knew that Qt 5.9 would be a LTS. ___ Development

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On Thursday 08 June 2017 08:45:24 Lars Knoll wrote: > Sure, it's still important that we all know about the possible side effects > of dropping a compiler version before making the decision. > > IMO, keeping VC++ 2013 while dropping gcc 4.7 doesn't make too much sense. > We either keep both or

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On 8 June 2017 at 09:45, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> And dropping GCC 4.7 would imply dropping support for QNX 6. >> >> I'll make the observation that we just released an LTS release that >> will support QNX 6 >> until the next LTS comes out. > > > Sure, it's still important that we

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

> On 8 Jun 2017, at 08:37, Ville Voutilainen > wrote: > > On 8 June 2017 at 09:23, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> I'd like to propose raising the minimum version for GCC to 4.8.1, which is >>> the >>> first C++11 complete version, or higher. The reason

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On 8 June 2017 at 09:23, Lars Knoll wrote: >> I'd like to propose raising the minimum version for GCC to 4.8.1, which is >> the >> first C++11 complete version, or higher. The reason for this is actually to >> drop GCC 4.7 and earlier, which have a few bugs with their C++11

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

On 7 Jun 2017, at 22:09, Thiago Macieira > wrote: On Tuesday, 6 June 2017 23:57:10 PDT Jani Heikkinen wrote: Hi all, There has been discussion ongoing about 5.10 supported platforms and CI configurations. What we haven't agreed yet is

Re: [Development] [Releasing] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

07.06.2017, 23:09, "Thiago Macieira" : > On Tuesday, 6 June 2017 23:57:10 PDT Jani Heikkinen wrote: >>  Hi all, >> >>  There has been discussion ongoing about 5.10 supported platforms and CI >>  configurations. What we haven't agreed yet is Qt 5.10 pre-built binaries.