Remove Qt < 5.2 conditionals and special code

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:40:44PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 17.08.2023 um 07:24 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> > I'm not necessarily against it, but the argument for keeping that
> > code is that it might be helpful to do a bisect of Qt to figure out a
> > Qt bug. The reason we require a higher Qt 5.x is that *some* things
> > don't work well, but if I recall correctly most things do, so it is
> > possible to compile and test.
> 
> But this would mean, in consequence, that if we implement something
> within the 2.4 cycle, we would have to make sure it still compiles with
> Qt < 5.2.

Good point. I was thinking that we would not take on that responsibility
but just "hope" that it would still compile with it. But indeed that
decreases the benefit of keeping the code.

> I got to this while pondering about the URL link warning dialog.
> Implementing this dialog (the way I proposed it) would mean we'd need
> to roll another self-baked dialog only for the sake of keeping it
> compilable with Qt < 5.2.

I definitely don't think we should do that. I didn't know that it
wouldn't be compilable. I just thought that it would compile but several
things wouldn't work well.

> Generally I would not expect to find significant bugs in Qt 5.2 that
> are not in Qt 5.0 and 5.1 (on the contrary; Qt 5 has not been very
> stable before 5.2).

Good to know.

Thanks for your responses. +1 to commit from me.

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20230817/45cd436d/attachment.asc>