On Monday, 4 January 2021 20:32:27 -03 Scott Bloom wrote:
> The funny thing, I remember at a Qt Dev Days when Qt 5 was about a
> year away. The "we will never do a Qt 3-4 type major version change
> again" was said time and time again.
>
> Where functionality was missing, and no one was happy w
On Monday, 4 January 2021 20:32:27 -03 Scott Bloom wrote:
> The funny thing, I remember at a Qt Dev Days when Qt 5 was about a year
> away. The "we will never do a Qt 3-4 type major version change again" was
> said time and time again.
>
> Where functionality was missing, and no one was happy wit
-Original Message-
From: Development On Behalf Of Kevin
Kofler via Development
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 3:16 PM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Spam: Re: Commercial-only LTS phase starts: Closing
the 5.15 branch(es) on 5th January
Oswald Buddenhagen
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:55:10PM +, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
It seems that releasing a 6.0 was the best way to get more eyes and
brains on Qt 6.
one can always say that, but there is a balance to be struck, and it is
*very* obvious that 6.1 will be what and when 6.0 should have been.
w
> On 4 Jan 2021, at 16:53, Bernhard Lindner wrote:
>
>
>> I’m not aware of a decision to break binary compatibility in Qt 6.1. The -
>> so far - last
>> email to the respective discussion thread is
>>
>> https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-December/040763.html
>>
>> and ne
