LC & Catalina; macOS 10.15.x; Xcode 11.3.x; iOS 13.3.x support ???
J. Landman Gay
jacque at hyperactivesw.com
Thu Mar 12 23:33:01 EDT 2020
I see now. I confess that I stopped reading the subject itself after a
while when the thread took off on a tangent. You make a valid point. LC
actually did what you describe when 64-bit started to be required on OS X.
They released a rapid update and made the deadline but it was close. I
heard they really had to scramble, but they knew how important it was.
Apparently Apple doesn't give much advance notice to third-party IDE
developers. If you're working in Xcode these changes are less intrusive.
I haven't yet installed Catalina, but I submitted an app to the App Store
last week built with Xcode 11.1 and LC 9.6dp2, and it ran on iOS 13. It was
not rejected for that reason (though I did screw up on something else.)
Unless something has changed since then, I think you can proceed. LC has
always met the final deadlines for these things and I'm sure they'll do it
But I agree that a longer lead time would ease everyone's mind. Is Xcode
11.3 or iOS 13.3 required soon? I thought we still had a month or more left.
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 12, 2020 8:54:11 PM Pi Digital via use-livecode
<use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> The clue is in the subject heading, Jacque. At least, I thought it was
> plain enough. The script editor and HTML issues I mentioned were just ‘mind
> wind’ in the process of bemoaning the speed of uptake to current OS and
> Xcode support.
> Here’s the big issue. Essential updates that all users are dependent on,
> like OS support, are held off from release while other minor updates are
> worked on and refined. I would venture to suggest that a new policy for
> these heavy releases to come quicker in a x.x.x release while the other
> combination/collection of fixes and features be sent out in an x.x release.
> This would then make sure critical errors/features (which I would say OS
> support fits into) are addressed and released quicker while not being held
> off at the mercy of other fixes waiting in the wings.
> Using this method would make it easier on the hub too. Anyone working on
> non critical updates can develop to the sub major release (ie. 9.7) while
> other more critical fixes can be applied to minor (not minor in urgency)
> releases (ie. 9.6.24). These can then have just one or three fixes that
> then get fed upstream into the 9.7 develop branch to be then checked
> against any other features being added to it.
> Does that make sense?
> Sean Cole
> Pi Digital
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode