On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 04:18:53 PST Edward Welbourne wrote: > ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. IIUC, Qt 4 was a > monorepo, that contained everything that's now in sub-modules; so the > transition to Qt 5 was also the modularisation moment, calling for a new > repo
Actually, what happened was that we were doing the modularisation of Qt 4 and we needed a repo name. At that point marketing suggested "qt5" and we ran with it. There was no reason the first modularised version needed to be 5.0 (it could have been 4.9), but it made complete sense to do the two things at the same time, because of the major build system rework. And yes, someone at the time wondered what we'd do when 6.0 came along. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
