André Pönitz wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 07:06:55AM +0000, [email protected] 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. > > That's essentially option (D) with a somewhat longer lead time.
Somewhat. If it's a binary break we should still call it Qt 6. I'm thinking we should get 5.0 out, use 5.1 to stabilize, react to feedback and generally (im)prove on the Qt 5 vision. Some container changes sneaked in, but they're not what we're trying to deliver *now*. In parallel, we actually write the container changes everyone's up in arms about (Thiago's changes are unfinished and not-fully-published work in progress), we review those changes, take them for a spin, kick the hell out of those tires and then make an informed decision whether it is worth the binary break and how to handle it, in case it is. Besides autotests coverage, we also have no benchmarks showing improvements. I assume we can see improvements for the inlining of size and offset/data in iteration benchmarks, but we haven't fully explored the impact of *growing* the size of the container itself. Anyway, we can discuss potential options now, but we can't make any decisions and can hardly make commitments, other than than "let's do the container changes and release them when they're ready". Cheers, João _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
