On Thursday 16 February 2012 13:39:14 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > On 2/16/12 2:11 PM, "ext Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > > wrote: > >On quinta-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2012 13.51.27, Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> > If that guarantee cannot be given, I will oppose the inclusion of > >> > >>QtQuick1 > >> > >> > as part of the Qt 5.0 release. > >> > >> That said, even if it doesn't get released with Qt 5.0, it could be > >> released later in the future if those people who want to use it band > >> together and make it work (with 5.0 or 5.x or both). > > > >Or not at all. If a group of people does not show up to maintain it, then > >it's > >possible that it never gets released. I think that's preferable than to > >give > >the false impression to our users that they can rely on this feature. > > Well, it's working for the moment, so the question is where the person > comes from that is willing to keep it alive. Since we'll keep BC after > 5.0, the work would mainly be to adjust to changes in private headers and > internals.
So if one wants to change the private header in qtbase while implementing a new feate, who is responsible to port QtQuick1? The one making the change, or the QtQuick1 maintainers? Because if it is the one making the change, then it becomes a burden for the developers in qtbase. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development