LyX 2.4.0

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 12/6/21 15:48, Stephan Witt wrote:
> Am 05.12.2021 um 18:46 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck <rikiheck at lyx.org>:
>> On 12/4/21 06:26, Stephan Witt wrote:
>>> Am 01.12.2021 um 22:48 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck <rikiheck at lyx.org>:
>>>> Hi, all,
>>>>
>>>> Things got a bit crazy again, but I now should have a bit of time. Where do people think we stand with 2.4.0? I've seen a bit of activity in the interim. Do we need to do one more alpha? Or should we proceed directly to beta 1?
>>>>
>>>> What if anything needs to be done before we move to whatever the next stage is?
>>> I have two things pending:
>>>
>>> 1. Changes to make LyX to compile with Qt 6.2 on Mac
>>> 2. Configure option parameter to define the minimum target OS version for Mac
>>>
>>> I’d like to push them to be ready for build of LyX package with Qt 6.2 for Intel and M1 CPUs on Mac.
>> I'm ignorant of such things. I would think you could go ahead. The changes look pretty minor.
>>
>> I did notice that your patch sometimes uses QT_VERSION < QT_VERSION_CHECK(6, 0, 0) and sometimes uses QT_VERSION < 0x060000 type syntax. I would guess we should be consistent, but I don't know which is best.
> I’m using the variant I see in the code above or below. Personally I prefer the QT_VERSION_CHECK macro. But it’s not possible everywhere - moc don’t know it and it doesn’t work in headers read by moc.
>
> So to be consistent is possible with the 0x0yzblah syntax.

Well, if we're already inconsistent, then I wouldn't worry about it.

Riki