> On Wednesday July 18 2012, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote: > > 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. > if it's qt 6, then you call it qt 6. you need to do that because of SOVERSION requirements anyway. but this instantly forces the question: what's the point of rushing out 5.0 now if we already know that we'll deprecate it in a year?
> > 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. > every linux distributor will slaughter you for this statement. On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:25:37PM +0200, ext Marc Mutz wrote: > We don't even need to break binary compatibility. We could use inline > namespaces to let new code see the new containers while old code uses the old > ones. > and how exactly is this supposed to work? we are not talking about changing some private implementation details, but the publicly visible data structures which are fundamental parts of our api+abi. even if it's somehow possible to have different classes use different container implementations, the conversion overhead would be ridiculous. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
