@JKSH said in Qt company, don't speak for developers anymore, your managements are totally awful:
The Qt Company hasn't yet clarified is how the git repo structure will look like when Qt 6.0.0 is released -- this will affect how additional patches land in Qt 5.15.
Yeah, I don't like the silence of the lambs. The new terms had enough backlash, yet the introducers don't seem too keen on elaborating or addressing people's concerns (a.k.a the finer details).
@Chris-Kawa said in Qt company, don't speak for developers anymore, your managements are totally awful:
Do I understand it correctly that with 5.14 present all following LTS releases, so 5.12.8 and up, won't be available to non-commercial customers? Is that in binaries or source too?
Both, you're correct in principle, but not for these versions. There's no such thing as LTS for OSS users 5.15 onwards. The QtC never actually clarified if they're going to support 5.15 long enough, so it's feasible to jump to Qt 6, though ... so nobody really knows if 5.15 is LTS (old style) or just a regular release. In the latter case ... well you can imagine the implications ...
So basically if I'm on open source version and want to stay on LTS I'd have to do the 5.14 -> 5.12 cherry picking on my own?
If we grant substituting the version numbers, yes, you do.
Given the obligations of L(GPL) I would then have to make the result of that process publicly available, so sort of a hand made 5.12.8 of my own. So basically it's gonna be a huge waste of time and multiplication of same effort for the open-source community.
Correct and on point. Sales don't care about community though, they care about money.
Also there's gonna be a few 5.12.8 (and up) versions floating around, all with subtle differences because of independent cherry picking done by people. Is that right or did I got that wrong?
Not 5.12.x, but it may happen for 5.15+ If 5.15 isn't a real LTS (which we don't know really) then I'm pretty sure the KDE folks (at the very least) have to backport stuff from Qt 6 until they're able to switch over to the next major. Which as you can imagine is a big pain in the ass and an enormous effort.
@Chris-Kawa said in Qt company, don't speak for developers anymore, your managements are totally awful:
Sure, it could be interesting. The big points in the announcements are: login requirement, offline installer commercial-only, LTS commercial only and new startup offer. My personal opinion on those: first - very annoying, second - I don't use it so don't care, third - awful and the last one again doesn't apply to me so I don't care.
I vote on:
First - Complete nonsense
Second - *shrug* annoying, but okay
Third - If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, that's one way to do it. Less testing on LTS meaning even the paying customers don't get the free testing, and/or patches. Bugs that don't appear in later implementations aren't at all going to be seen or fixed, or backported by the OSS people, so you're stuck with QtC's guys, if they can spare the time that is.
Fourth - Stillborn, completely underthought and practically inapplicable
