On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 04:40:24 PST Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> I do agree that we should avoid dropping configurations in patch releases.
> However, we should be pragmatic and provide the set that is most valuable
> for the users and still feasible to maintain. So in my opinion adding
> somethi
Hi,
I do agree that we should avoid dropping configurations in patch releases.
However, we should be pragmatic and provide the set that is most valuable for
the users and still feasible to maintain. So in my opinion adding something and
removing another is fine if that is what best serves our
> -Original Message-
> From: Development On Behalf Of
> The mail did not state 5.12.x. Hence it was under the assumption "as always"
> with the next minor release.
As the person who initiated this, I have a bit of an ambivalent view point.
Fact is, we have always made those changes for t
Am Mi., 6. Feb. 2019 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Jesus Fernandez <
jesus.fernan...@qt.io>:
>
> The original mail said nothing about 5.12.2. And I would remove support
> for both compilers in 5.13. Any 32 bits is an outdated platform.
>
>
>
32 bit is not only about platform. 32 bit applications still run
ann
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in
> favour of MinGW 32-bit packages
>
> Hi!
>
> >>And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot
> stop providing them in 5.1
Hausmann
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
Hi!
>>And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot
>>stop providing them in 5.12.x.
I disagree. I agree we
ebruary 6, 2019 1:06 PM
To: Jani Heikkinen; Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
> I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
Yes, I was referring to patc
06 February 2019 11:02
To: Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
Hi,
As Simon already wrote this is affecting only prebuilt binary packages we
deliver
org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
We’ve been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so far,
but not for patch level ones.
Maurice
From: Developmen
: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not
result in any changes in the git repos.
Simon
On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez
iginal message
From: Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
Hi,
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?
Best regards,
Jesús
Original message
From: Harald Kjølberg
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
of MinGW 32-bit packages
f dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of
MinGW 32-bit packages
Hi,
In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some
constructive and well deserved criticism):
We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW
32-bit packages. We looked at this
Hi,
In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some
constructive and well deserved criticism):
We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and
it should be our int
14 matches
Mail list logo
