No subject

mporary distros would it make any sense at all to perhaps maintain backward=
 compatibility for some small window of time? eg: if in early 2009 qt 4.5 i=
s commonly used by the KDE distro's then for all of 2010 paraview suppo=
rts at a minimum qt4.5.<br>

<br>
If it were just for developers I&#39;d say no, but since anyone who wants t=
o take advantage of parallel pv has to compile. this type of thing has pote=
ntial to affect a bunch of users as well.<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">
<br>
<br>
Utkarsh Ayachit wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Folks,<br>
<br>
As we are approaching 3.8 branch, what does everyone think of making<br>
Qt 4.6 the officially supported version? Quite a few of us have been<br>
using Qt 4.6 for quite some time now and don&#39;t think there are any<br>
issues.<br>
<br>
Utkarsh<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Paraview-developers mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Paraview-developers at paraview.org" target=3D"_blank">Parav=
iew-developers at paraview.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers" =
target=3D"_blank">http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-devel=
opers</a><br>
 =A0<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Paraview-developers mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Paraview-developers at paraview.org" target=3D"_blank">Parav=
iew-developers at paraview.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers" =
target=3D"_blank">http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-devel=
opers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--001636ed629fb4359d047f08cd47--