[Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday, 26 March 2021 17:23:38 PDT Scott Bloom wrote:
> To me, Qt should continue to support OS's/Compilers for the life of a Major
> version of Qt.  if it built on Qt 5.0 it should build on that OS/Compiler
> in 5.15
> 
> If Qt decides that modern C++ was more important in 5.13, and the compilers
> available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then frankly, its
> time to move to Qt 6

That's a distinction without a difference. You're saying you're unable to 
upgrade past 5.12 because a given compiler version became unsupported (that 
happened because those compilers were actually broken, not for lack of feature 
support, unlike the 5.6/5.7 change which was C++11). And you're saying the 
solution is to rename the next version 6.0.

But you're not using that version, so what it is called is completely 
irrelevant. Meanwhile, those who can upgrade are thankful for not having to 
deal with the inevitable dot-oh issues.

The difference, though, is this:

> There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain
> time.  Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported
> and new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out.

Right. The lack of 5.15 updates right now is a problem.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering