On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:37:51PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Because neither Stephan nor Uwe can reproduce #9683, I have marked it as > > "os=unix". Do you agree that #9683 is not a blocker for releasing 2.2.0 > > with Qt 5.5.1 on Mac and Windows? (There is potentially another blocker > > in #9883 but that is a separate issue.) The reasoning is that we do not > > ship binaries for Linux, so we would just document this bug and > > recommend using Qt 4.8.x or 5.6.0 (note that I am using 5.6.0dev and I > > cannot reproduce). Another reason to recommend 5.6.0 on Linux is #9731. > > I do not agree,
Which part do you not agree with? > but since I cannot judge for windows or Mac, I also do not oppose. OK. > FWIW, I am happy with QT5.4. > I tried QT5.6pre, but it was not better. > I also compiled with gcc5.3, but the effect was the same. I will try 5.6 beta when it is released. If I cannot reproduce and you can reproduce, we should confirm we are using the same Qt version and then figure out which difference in our systems causes us to see different behavior. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
