[Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Maurice Kalinowski]

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: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Simon Hausmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Jesus Fernandez <jesus.fernandez at qt.io>
Cc: development at 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 <jesus.fernandez at qt.io<mailto:jesus.fernandez at qt.io>> wrote:
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?



Best regards,
Jesús


-------- Original message --------
From: Harald Kjølberg <harald.kjolberg at qt.io<mailto:harald.kjolberg at qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented, effective from Qt 5.12.2.


Cheers,
Harald

From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org<mailto:development-bounces at qt-project.org>> on behalf of Harald Kjølberg <harald.kjolberg at qt.io<mailto:harald.kjolberg at qt.io>>
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>" <development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Intention of 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 today and agreed that this can be done, and it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision February 5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback saying that we should do otherwise.

For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019



Regards,
Harald Kjølberg

_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20190206/e6ac498c/attachment.html>