On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Torsten Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/08/2016 03:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> Thanks for providing this nice motivation to help. i was concerned for a moment that i'd misunderstood, and that the code-comment meant that the issue was well-understood. i'm relieved (even though i can tell you're being sarcastic, which is fine with me, i don't mind) that i correctly understood the code-comment. it would be really dumb of me to have been so blunt and brutally honest... and then be totally wrong! done that enough times in the past *sigh*... > Without the swap buffer setting, it was unusable with early Qt5 > releases. which sounds like a familiar story with code that's in development. .... so the question is, then, why, if qt5 is problematic, continue to use it at all? (especially for something as important as a stable release of a debian package) it sounds like simply making trouble without actually having any real benefit. i've shown that the code is compile-compatible, you don't *actually* need to use qt5. think of it another way: what's the easiest, quickest solution that enables you to get a stable, useable debian package out the door, with the minimum amount of developer time and the minimum amount of maintainer time spent? is it (a) compile with qt4 (b) modify the code to use the new OpenGL widget (c) wait for the qt team to fix the issues with qt5. if you're happy to help the qt5 team debug qt5, by providing updates, bugreports and so on, great, but from what you're saying, the team's small, they have other issues that are higher priority - why cause extra pain and hassle... and release packages that are completely unusable for the majority of people? this bug's marked "important" for a reason. something to think about, yeah? btw, apologies but the laptop i'm using has an SSD which, if it is hammered with swaps, causes big delays due to continuous PCIe resets. debug builds, especially at the linker stage and especially with c++, use up so much memory that i won't be able to help test by doing debug-build compiles, it's too risky, even with 8gb of RAM. i will say that the difference between debug and release builds sounds like there's some sort of race condition somewhere in qt5 - something that's execution-time-dependent: events where if one is completed first everything's fine but if a system is slower (because of a debug build or just because of different performance) then it's not... this hypothesis - that there's some reordering of events occurring due to execution time differences on different platforms - would explain why you're seeing some people be able to repro the problem whereas others cannot, and why some people have the problem and others do not. l.
