Hi, I tried to create error reports about the findings to be able to follow-up the progress. Please create new one if something is missing. I have also linked all to the Qt5.5.0-RC blocker list so please try to close all as soon as possible. I'll ask LEs from responsible persons today to be able to estimate RC schedule
Here is the errors I created: QTBUG-46555 not Qt-like API in QtGUI QTBUG-46556 Retroactive deprecations are not allowed. QTBUG-46557 QtTest.diff : API isn't finished QTBUG-46558 Some methods in wrong class QTBUG-46559 Q_DECL_OVERRIDEs missing from QtQuickWidgets API QTBUG-46560 QtQML: Rename qqmfile.h into qqmlfile_p.h. QTBUG-46561 Header Diff related issues in QtCore QTBUG-46562 Header diff issues in QtLocation QTBUG-46563 Header diff issues in QtMultimedia QTBUG-46564 Header diff issues in QtBluetooth br, Jani >>-----Original Message----- >>From: development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=theqtcompany.com@qt- >>project.org [mailto:development- >>bounces+jani.heikkinen=theqtcompany....@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of >>Oswald Buddenhagen >>Sent: 9. kesäkuuta 2015 12:49 >>To: development@qt-project.org >>Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.5.0 header diff >> >>On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:35:45AM +0000, Knoll Lars wrote: >>> On 08/06/15 23:58, "development- >>bounces+lars.knoll=theqtcompany....@qt-project.org on behalf of Thiago >>Macieira" <development-bounces+lars.knoll=theqtcompany.com@qt- >>project.org on behalf of thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> >On Monday 08 June 2015 22:31:15 Marc Mutz wrote: >>> >> It would probably be a good idea to do an additional header diff (incl. >>> >> new >>> >> headers) on the ML after the alpha. I don't follow the development of >>> >> modules other than QtBase closely, nor do I want to, and apparently I'm >>too >>> >> strict a reviewer to be regularly invited on new API >>> >>> Agree. Let's put this into our planning for 5.6. One header diff/review at >>> the >>time we branch 5.6, and a final one to cross-check before the RC. >>> >>> >>> > >>> >Well, that's exactly the kind of people we want reviewing our APIs... >>> >>> Thiago's right. If there's one place we want to be very strict it's on our >>> APIs. >>Everything else we can still fix later on, but APIs are out there and will >>stick for a >>long time, so we better get them right. >>> >>wouldn't that mean pulling the emergency brake on 5.5 and allowing a >>further ~two week slip in the schedule to actually fix the problem now >>that we are aware of it? i think we already have enough experience with >>how well "next time" works in practice ... >>_______________________________________________ >>Development mailing list >>Development@qt-project.org >>http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development