you guys getting "famous": https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/05/qt_lts_goes_commercial_only/
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:15 PM Volker Hilsheimer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5 Jan 2021, at 21:18, Max Paperno <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1/5/2021 1:02 PM, Adam Light wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:56 AM Volker Hilsheimer < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Apart from that: is Qt 5.15.2 really so broken that people can’t use > >> it without getting more patches? > >> I can't speak to 5.15 as we decided not to upgrade since it's not a > real LTS release (we do not believe we are eligible to purchase a > commercial license), but the minor fixes that come later in LTS releases > (5.9 and 5.12) have often fixed problems our users have reported in our > application, particularly on macOS. Due to behavior changes in different Qt > minor versions (again, primarily on macOS), we typically change the Qt > minor version only when we release a new major version of our application > (~every 2-3 years). > >> LTS releases have been critical in our successful use of Qt, and I am > not sure what will happen moving forward. > >> Adam > > > > Hear, hear. Stuck on 5.12 here. > > > > Working on OS projects, commercial is not even an option, and resources > (e.g. for testing/fixing on every new Qt release) are very limited (read: > one person often does everything). E.g. testing one app on 5.14.1 yielded 3 > breaking Qt issues which had to be fixed upstream, and mostly didn't make > it into .2 either. LTS (after like a .3 or so update) is the only way to go > IMHO, the others are for testing/playing. > > > > I'm so sick of "scheduled releases come hell or high water" in the > programming world (in general, not just Qt). The quality is (usually) > crap. Once upon a time this release quality was called > Alpha/Beta/Preview/NFP (not for production). Qt6 has literally been called > as being "primarily" for testing/feedback. That's a new major release > now? /further rant aborted > > > > Sorry, I'm only passionate about it because I love what Qt does and I > love when it does it well and consistently. Everyone who's helped make it > that way is my hero, thank you! > > > > -Max > > > Hi Max and Adam, > > > What can do better to avoid such regressions from making it into a > release, or preferably into the code, in the first place? Nobody, not even > the Qt Company management :P *wants* to release crappy quality on time. > > What we know about those bugs is that they passed all code reviews, and > didn’t get caught by any of the thousands of tests we run for every change > on half a dozen platforms. And we know that the only way they were > discovered is real users testing real applications against the released > version of Qt. > > So, what we have is clearly not good enough, but if the last 15 years of > writing unit tests etc hasn’t gotten us to a better place, then maybe “more > of the same” can’t be the only strategy. > > Is your experience that we release stuff “come hell or high water" in > spite of severe bugs being reported during beta testing? We do spend a lot > of time triaging incoming bug reports, and a severe enough bug can always > block a release. > > Or do we not discover the issues until the .0 release because few people > test the pre-releases? That seems to be supported by the data we have about > downloads and general activity in response to pre-releases. > > > Volker > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development > -- Best regards, Vlad
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
