[Qgis-developer] [Qgis-psc] PR1007 bump minimum to 4.7: objections?

[Alex Mandel]

On 11/30/2013 06:29 AM, Tim Sutton wrote:
> Hi
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Richard Duivenvoorde
> <rdmailings at duif.net>wrote:
> 
>> On 30-11-13 01:44, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>>> Ok - so what's the final call here? Is someone willing to make a final
>>> decision between bumping to 4.6 and keeping support for lucid or
>>> bumping to 4.7 and dropping lucid? (Looks like 4.8 is out of the
>>> question at the moment).
>>>
>>> If someone can make a call I'll update the pull request and make sure
>>> all #ifdef's for versions < 4.6/4.7 are removed.
>>
>> Hi Nyall,
>>
>> if I am correct, I think the general view of devs is that a bump to 4.7
>> only is not worth to pull without:
>>
>> 1) a cleanup of stuff that is not needed anymore because of the change
>> 2) a (good) purpose on why to do it
>>
>> one of the devs told me: "why not a good PR with
>> 1) the bump
>> 2) the cleanup
>> 3) the new stuff
>>
>> I think this whole discussion is because of different ideas about this
>> kind of pull requests between different people.
>>
>> @psc maybe we should write down this kind of things in governance?
>>
>> @nyall is a PR like above doable for you?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Duivenvoorde
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
> 
> For me upgrading to 4.7 is a +0 - I still use QGIS on 12.04 systems and I
> suspect that others do too. However 14.04 is just around the corner so it
> wont be hard to wait an extra few months before running QGIS 2.2.
> 
> What about being more aggressive and actually porting to Qt5? Its been out
> for a while now and should represent a stable target for us to develop
> against.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Tim
> 

Tim,

The controversy is over 10.04 (Qt 4.6) not 12.04 (Qt 4.8)
To me it seems good enough to bump to 4.6 now without breaking anything
and to consider 4.8 as minimum for QGIS 2.2

That seems reasonable given what out there and providing packagers time
to catch up. Presumably there are known fixes and features that devs
intend to take advantage of for 2.2 that warrant this shift (previous
notes on this thread indicate this to be true).

Move to Qt5 seems like a whole different discussion depending on level
or work needed.

Thanks,
Alex