On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 07:06:55AM +0000, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote: > Hey, > > I would rather we don't *rush* the container changes in, but get them > up to snuff in a separate branch, instead. I would also like to > challenge the assumptions I've seen repeated that probability for > breakage is low and autotest coverage is high. It isn't and it isn't. > It is very easy to break less-often used features and corner cases > that will not get caught by autotests. I don't think this is > acceptable for fundamentals like QVector and friends. > > I think it would be feasible to do a binary-only break somewhere > around the 5.2 timeframe (say, ~12 months) where we address this. > Technically, this would be Qt 6, but user porting effort would be > reduced to a recompile.
That's essentially option (D) with a somewhat longer lead time. I think that would be ok. > The value of having a long lived (5 years?) binary compatible 5.x > series is (IMO) low as there are quite often other reasons to > recompile the stack. Right. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development