[Development] Commercial-only LTS phase starts: Closing the 5.15 branch(es) on 5th January

NIkolai Marchenko enmarantispam at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 14:25:50 CET 2021

wow, this title is so completely incorrect and taken out of context.....

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:15 PM Vlad Stelmahovsky <vladstelmahovsky at gmail.com>

> you guys getting "famous":
> https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/05/qt_lts_goes_commercial_only/
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:15 PM Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer at qt.io>
> wrote:
>> > On 5 Jan 2021, at 21:18, Max Paperno <max-l at wdg.us> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 1/5/2021 1:02 PM, Adam Light wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:56 AM Volker Hilsheimer <
>> volker.hilsheimer at qt.io <mailto:volker.hilsheimer at qt.io>> wrote:
>> >>    Apart from that: is Qt 5.15.2 really so broken that people can’t use
>> >>    it without getting more patches?
>> >> I can't speak to 5.15 as we decided not to upgrade since it's not a
>> real LTS release (we do not believe we are eligible to purchase a
>> commercial license), but the minor fixes that come later in LTS releases
>> (5.9 and 5.12) have often fixed problems our users have reported in our
>> application, particularly on macOS. Due to behavior changes in different Qt
>> minor versions (again, primarily on macOS), we typically change the Qt
>> minor version only when we release a new major version of our application
>> (~every 2-3 years).
>> >> LTS releases have been critical in our successful use of Qt, and I am
>> not sure what will happen moving forward.
>> >> Adam
>> >
>> > Hear, hear.  Stuck on 5.12 here.
>> >
>> > Working on OS projects, commercial is not even an option, and resources
>> (e.g. for testing/fixing on every new Qt release) are very limited (read:
>> one person often does everything). E.g. testing one app on 5.14.1 yielded 3
>> breaking Qt issues which had to be fixed upstream, and mostly didn't make
>> it into .2 either. LTS (after like a .3 or so update) is the only way to go
>> IMHO, the others are for testing/playing.
>> >
>> > I'm so sick of "scheduled releases come hell or high water" in the
>> programming world (in general, not just Qt).  The quality is (usually)
>> crap.  Once upon a time this release quality was called
>> Alpha/Beta/Preview/NFP (not for production).  Qt6 has literally been called
>> as being "primarily" for testing/feedback.  That's a new major release
>> now?  /further rant aborted
>> >
>> > Sorry, I'm only passionate about it because I love what Qt does and I
>> love when it does it well and consistently.  Everyone who's helped make it
>> that way is my hero, thank you!
>> >
>> > -Max
>> Hi Max and Adam,
>> What can do better to avoid such regressions from making it into a
>> release, or preferably into the code, in the first place? Nobody, not even
>> the Qt Company management :P *wants* to release crappy quality on time.
>> What we know about those bugs is that they passed all code reviews, and
>> didn’t get caught by any of the thousands of tests we run for every change
>> on half a dozen platforms. And we know that the only way they were
>> discovered is real users testing real applications against the released
>> version of Qt.
>> So, what we have is clearly not good enough, but if the last 15 years of
>> writing unit tests etc hasn’t gotten us to a better place, then maybe “more
>> of the same” can’t be the only strategy.
>> Is your experience that we release stuff “come hell or high water" in
>> spite of severe bugs being reported during beta testing? We do spend a lot
>> of time triaging incoming bug reports, and a severe enough bug can always
>> block a release.
>> Or do we not discover the issues until the .0 release because few people
>> test the pre-releases? That seems to be supported by the data we have about
>> downloads and general activity in response to pre-releases.
>> Volker
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at qt-project.org
>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
> --
> Best regards,
> Vlad
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> 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/20210106/0922228e/attachment.html>

More information about the Development mailing list