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

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

Sent from my mobile
On 01 Dec 2013 8:57 PM, "Alex Mandel" <tech_dev at wildintellect.com> wrote:
>
> 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

Ah sorry I have the wrong end of the stick to as usual :-) .

Regards

Tim
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20131208/5d5300dc/attachment.html>