[Development] New reference platforms in the CI for Qt5.2

[Koehne Kai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org] On
> Behalf Of Charley Bay
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 6:57 PM
> To: qtnext
> Cc: Sarajärvi Tony; development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] New reference platforms in the CI for Qt5.2
> 
> [...]
> For the Qt community, though, my suggestion for "reference platforms"
> would be something like:
> 
> ----
> FOR TODAY:
> ----
> *- Qt4 + MSVC2008 (sustaining development only)
>   ...I see no real advantage for Qt4+MSVC2010, nobody is sustaining fielded
> releases with this combination, I'm not sure they should bother...
> 
> *- Qt5 + MSVC2012 (existing and new development)
>   ...I see no real advantage for Qt5+MSVC2010, nobody is sustaining fielded
> releases with this combination, I'm not sure they should bother...

Note that MSVC 2010 SP1 32bit was defined as 'reference' platform/configuration for Qt 5: http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5#Platforms . And, if we stick to http://qt-project.org/groups/qt-contributors-summit-2011/wiki/Qt5ProductDefinition#4582cf86974b397c8f3a2ed2fd502f8cto , all we could possibly do is move it to Tier 1, which would still mean CI would have to test it.

I also don't agree with the sentiment that MSVC2010 isn't used any more . Personally, I've seen much more problems with the MSVC2012 compiler than with the 2010 one (e.g. https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-31248), and we're actually still building the creator packages with 2010. So, until I see hard numbers (e.g. from the downloading site) I find it hard to believe that 2012 has already overtaken 2010 for most customers.

Regards

Kai

> ----
> FOR SOON (AFTER STABLE MSVC2013):
> ----
> *- Qt5 + MSVC2013 (existing and new development)
>   ...Could also provide Qt5+MSVC2012 for the "transition", should be
> "easy/cheap" because the headers are similar (identical?), but I'd expect
> most people would move over to 2013 for new development, perhaps
> keeping 2012 for sustaining...
> 
> --charley