[Qt4???] Re: [PATCH] Show branches from master document in branch inset dialog

[Thibaut Cuvelier]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 19:38, Scott Kostyshak <skostysh at lyx.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:51:34AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 03:12:40PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 05:05:43PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > > > Still, I am wondering why we insist on supporting Qt4 for 2.4.0
> (especially
> > > > considering that we will have to continue this game for 2+ years
> after
> > > > that).
> > >
> > > That was decided when we planned to release 2.4 at the end of 2019.
> > > It's clear we won't be able to push 2.4 even for next debian stable
> > > and I think we can relax Qt4 support and move on.
> >
> > We had a conversation in July of this year. The following archive does
> > not seem to show some messages in the thread:
> >
> >   https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg217704.html
> >
> > Thibaut had some opinions, so it would be nice to hear from him first
> > before we decide to go forward with requiring Qt5.
> >
> > I paste Thibaut's message from 14 July 2022 here:
> >
> >   As 2.4 is roughly around the corner, maybe it's best to keep Qt 4
> >   compatibility, minus bogus behaviours of Qt 4 that are fixed with Qt
> 5: in
> >   this sense, compatibility would just be "ensure that LyX builds" (it
> should
> >   work roughly well enough) and ignoring bug reports only for Qt 4. Once
> >   release, we can announce that Qt 5.9 or even 5.15, for instance, will
> be
> >   the lowest tested version for LyX 2.5.
> >
> >   I don't think it's good practice to change this kind of compatibility
> >   without prior warning for packagers. Otherwise, I'm 100% ok with
> dropping
> >   support for really old versions that have not been supported for a long
> >   while. I wouldn't be ok with saying that Qt 5.0 is the minimum, given
> the
> >   large amount of changes in Qt since 2012 (10 years ago).
> >
> > By the way, I agree that 5.0 would not be the minimum. I forget, but we
> > need something like 5.4. I think we might have this documented
> > somewhere. If not, I can figure this out.
>
> Thibaut?
>

Well, if barely anyone tests with Qt 4 (I'm only using Qt 5.15), it's
already unsupported in practice and making the necessary changes would be
(1) cumbersome and (2) a waste of resources (little gain in supporting
versions of software that only belongs to a museum -- it's not as old as 486
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-i486-Linux-Possible-Drop>, though).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20221116/962a7fcc/attachment-0001.html>