[Development] Commercial-only 6.2 LTS phase starts: Closing the 6.2 branch(es) on 20th April

[Benjamin TERRIER]

On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 01:34, Konstantin Ritt <ritt.ks at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tuuka,
>
> By that link I didn't mean QTBUG-102962 exactly, but 23 matching bugs for
> a single component (which is not even one of the top-wanted components).
> On vanilla 6.2.4, QCamera simply doesn't work on many Android devices. All
> these issues were resolved for 6.2.5. Coincident?
>
> > We are no holding back on bug fixes, though.
> > so the fix is in Qt 6.3.1
> Technically you aren't. But in fact you are!
> That is what I called "please stick to unstable, semi-functional versions
> of Qt, test them and report bugs".
> 6.3 brought a bunch of new bugs and regressions, and some of them still
> aren't fixed. As for example, look at --
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-98964?jql=text%20~%20%22Binding%20on%20contentItem%20is%20not%20deferred%20as%20requested%20by%20the%20DeferredPropertyNames%20class%20info%20because%20one%20or%20more%20of%20its%20sub-objects%20contain%20an%20id%22
> -- (and not only at QTBUG-98964).
> Fixed in 6.3.0? Sure it is. But it is still reproducible in dev...
> Maybe it is not really important? Well, I personally can live with it.
> Until I get a hang/crash report in release due to this issue...
>
> And that's just a single example of many.
> Okay, perhaps I should stick back to 6.2.4, keep my eye on commits
> picked-up to mysterious 6.2.5 and apply them manually. Thanks,
> cherry-picking monkey is a job I was dreaming of!
>
> When I chose Qt for developing my apps, it was "Code less, create more[,
> deploy everywhere]".
> I was ok with building Qt from sources when you started selling binaries
> to your commercial folks. Waste of an hour of my machine power per several
> months was not a big price for stability update.
> But we definitely didn't choose to be your free testing crowd!
>
>
> Regards,
> Unhappy monkey
>

As much as I dislike The Qt Company unfriendly behaviour toward LGPL users
and the fact that IMHO The Qt Company seems to be taking decisions that
should be taken by the Qt Project,
I have to say that Qt did not have any form of LTS before Qt 5.6 and I do
not remember seeing any complaints about it during Qt 4 or early Qt 5 era.

The biggest issue was The Qt Company dropping open source support for Qt
5.15 while Qt 6 was far from ready.
There was no LTS during Qt 4, but Qt 4 did get support for at least a
couple of Qt 5 releases.
Thankfully KDE saved the day by having kde/5.15 branch

IMHO the fact that Qt .1 or .2 releases are seemingly never usable for some
users because of new bugs and regressions is a symptom of quality issues
that should not be solved by an LTS.

My 2 cts

Benjamin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20220920/2f99baea/attachment.htm>