On Monday 08 June 2015 15:58:23 Olivier Goffart wrote: > > > There is no reason to stop improving qmetatype. > > > > > > > > The qFatal was there for a good reason. > > It was there for a good reason for the existing flags. > But for new flags of course it does not make sens.
It did make sense: the idea was that registering new flags would cause the very incompatibility we're seeing here. I'm not entirely convinced that we discussed all scenarios at QtCS, so I'm still skeptical about allowing the IsGadget flag. I insist that we \omitvalue for now, until we understand the consequences better. And it's not just the flag. I'm not convinced about the template detection either. You had to apply two late fixes to the detection so that we wouldn't break source compatibility or create unnecessary warnings. > > The freeze stays: no new flags in QMetaType until Qt 6, no more messing > > with the template black magic. > > You can't mandate that. Yes, I can. As the maintainer, I have the authority and mandate to oversee the changes to the module I maintain and that includes blocking changes I am unsatisfied with. A mailing list consensus can overrule me, as can the Chief Maintainer. We stay frozen until further notice. If you have new flags you want to propose, you can do it, but we'll need a mailing list discussion before the change is allowed. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development