[Paraview-developers] Requiring Qt 4.6 for ParaView 3.8

Mon Feb 8 10:21:37 EST 2010

Those are indeed good and valid points. We were discussing a possible policy
and here's what we have. What does everybody think?

* There will 1 officially supported Qt version. This is the Qt version our
binaries will be released with. The officially supported Qt version will
remain fixed for 2 revisions e.g. 3.8 and 3.10 both will officially support
the same Qt version. There will be a minimum Qt version below which it
cannot compile (for 3.8 this will be Qt 4.5). However the minimum version
may go higher in every release (but <= the official Qt version) depending on
whether we end up using some latest Qt functionality  provided by the
officially supported release.

* Let Qt 4.6 be an exception, since Qt 4.6 is required to build on Snow
Leopard and it's a nightmare to support different versions on different
platforms. So 3.8 and 3.10, will be requiring Qt 4.6 (with min. Qt 4.5)

* CMake will flag an error when the Qt version is below the minimum; a
warning when the Qt version is below the official  (but above the min.) and
be silent with the Qt version is same as the official or above.

* Any user-interface related issues for any Qt version, but the official
version may not be addressed.

* We'll always have a dashboard machine compiling with the latest Qt so that
there will be no surprises when we switch to the latest Qt.

* After two consecutive major releases (not patch releases) have stuck with
the same QT version and it's time to upgrade to a newer Qt version, we'll
pick the latest Qt version released at least 3 months prior to the release.

How does that sound? If it's acceptable, I can post it to the Wiki as the
official policy for Qt version updating.

Utkarsh

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Stephane PLOIX <stephane.ploix at edf.fr>wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I think that we have to be carefull : with the branding refactoring making
> it easy to build applications on top of ParaView components, and the
> PV_INSTALL_DEVELOPMENT options, ParaView should now be considered more like
> an SDK than a stand-alone application.
>
> As more and more applications are built on top of PV, changing the version
> of Qt will impact all those applications, you should then have a clear
> policy regarding those versions, and give a advanced warning of any changed
> to come.
>
> Some possible policy would be :
> at each release of a new stable version of Qt, PV will support both the new
> and the old versions for 1 year, and drop the previous version after that
> or
> each stable version of ParaView will support both the lastest stable
> version of Qt and the previous one
>
> or whatever, but please make it a public policy so that we know what to
> expect.
>
> Best
> Stephane
>
>
>
>  *berk.geveci at kitware.com*
> Envoyé par : paraview-developers-bounces at paraview.org
>
> 07/02/2010 21:48
>   A
> burlen.loring at gmail.com
> cc
> paraview-developers at paraview.org
> Objet
> Re: [Paraview-developers] Requiring Qt 4.6 for ParaView 3.8
>
>
>
>
> I wouldn't object to supporting 4.5 and 4.6. I think setting up 1-2
> dashboards to verify building with 4.5 would be enough. We don't run into Qt
> specific bugs too often anyway. I defer to Utkarsh though.
>
> Also, if there is an attractive feature on the latest version of Qt that
> will make our lives much easier, we are likely to move to it and not support
> the previous version. So, I don't want to have an official rule about
> supporting more than 1 version.
>
> -berk
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:08 PM, burlen <*burlen.loring at gmail.com*<burlen.loring at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> Will this mean that PV won't build with any thing less than Qt 4.6?
> I wonder if it would make sense to have a small range of supported versions
> rather than a single one?
>
> It's currently the case that with qt anything less than 4.5 pv fails to
> compile (even if you remove the version test in cmakelists) because pv uses
> some qt classes that were only added to 4.5. In my opinion it would be a
> burden to pv users to get too far ahead of the various KDE supported
> distro's packages. eg. Kubuntu 9.10 reports qt version 4.5.2. KUbuntu 8.04.4
> LTS reports qt version 4.3.4.
>
> From the point of view of making it easy to build paraview on various
> contemporary 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 is commonly used by the KDE distro's then for all of 2010 paraview
> supports at a minimum qt4.5.
>
> If it were just for developers I'd say no, but since anyone who wants to
> take advantage of parallel pv has to compile. this type of thing has
> potential to affect a bunch of users as well.
>
>
> Utkarsh Ayachit wrote:
> Folks,
>
> As we are approaching 3.8 branch, what does everyone think of making
> Qt 4.6 the officially supported version? Quite a few of us have been
> using Qt 4.6 for quite some time now and don't think there are any
> issues.
>
> Utkarsh
> _______________________________________________
> Paraview-developers mailing list*
> **Paraview-developers at paraview.org* <Paraview-developers at paraview.org>*
> **http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers*<http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paraview-developers mailing list*
> **Paraview-developers at paraview.org* <Paraview-developers at paraview.org>*
> **http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers*<http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers>
> _______________________________________________
> Paraview-developers mailing list
> Paraview-developers at paraview.org
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers
>
> Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes (ci-après le 'Message') sont établis à l'intention exclusive des destinataires et les informations qui y figurent sont strictement confidentielles. Toute utilisation de ce Message non conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication totale ou partielle, est interdite sauf autorisation expresse.
>
> Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce Message, il vous est interdit de le copier, de le faire suivre, de le divulguer ou d'en utiliser tout ou partie. Si vous avez reçu ce Message par erreur, merci de le supprimer de votre système, ainsi que toutes ses copies, et de n'en garder aucune trace sur quelque support que ce soit. Nous vous remercions également d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour du message.
>
> Il est impossible de garantir que les communications par messagerie électronique arrivent en temps utile, sont sécurisées ou dénuées de toute erreur ou virus.
> ____________________________________________________
>
> This message and any attachments (the 'Message') are intended solely for the addressees. The information contained in this Message is confidential. Any use of information contained in this Message not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval.
>
> If you are not the addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return message.
>
> E-mail communication cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paraview-developers mailing list
> Paraview-developers at paraview.org
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/paraview-developers/attachments/20100208/52bec655/attachment.htm>