[Development] Qt branches & proposal how to continue with those
me at the-compiler.org
Mon Jan 29 15:04:45 CET 2018
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 02:32:58PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > In the light of that, I think it would be better to keep the LTS branches
> > open longer and stop doing patch releases for minor releases that are not
> > LTS.
> -1 from a distro packager perspective. LTS just does not fit together with
> fast-moving distributions, and we really need those bugfix releases for the
> branches we ship.
> Especially QtWebEngine requires those bugfix releases for security fixes,
> and tracking LTS is not that great there because the base Chromium gets old
> pretty quickly, and websites start complaining (e.g., Google already
> complains about 5.9 being an outdated Chromium) or even stop working
> altogether. The frequency of LTS releases has also so far been totally
> insufficient to keep up with Chromium security fixes (see the huge amount of
> time – almost a whole year! – between 5.6.2 and 5.6.3).
> I would rather see LTS canceled and more effort put into the current
> releases, if having both is a problem.
I can't agree more - while I'm not a distro packager, I'm a maintainer
of an opensource project using QtWebEngine.
5.x.0 releases are often quite painful, as they're full of regressions
introduced because of new Chromium versions. I try to find report those
as soon as possible, but there are always issues ( for an example)
which only surface after a release.
Like Kevin said, of course security updates are also a big issue, and
only getting them all 6 months is definitely not good...
https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP)
GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc
I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Development