Yes, it does. And for the case of QPA, we have said that we don't want to promise BC, but we haven't said that we will go around breaking SC for every patch release. (And we shouldn't, since SC breakage uses quite a bit of resources on all parties, so avoid them if you can.)
Like some others, I would prefer it to remain in non-private headers, while mark the QPA API with non-BC promise. IMO, in Qt 5.1 we should be able to promise BC on the QPA APIs too. -- .marius From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Stephen Kelly Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 10:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] important: upcoming rename of _qpa.h to _p.h On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 15:05:49 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > Well, that breaks SC for existing projects, which have been ok with the > missing BC. So you want to improve by promising BC by breaking SC? _p also means SC is not maintained. Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com<http://www.kdab.com> || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
