On Sunday, 22 de January de 2012 12.08.57, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Valentin Rusu wrote: > > Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> Kevin Ottens wrote: > >>> There's three main reasons for this rhythm: > >> * KAction/QAction stuff - Don't know what's needed. If QAction needs new > >> virtual method that would need to be determined soon. Is anyone driving > >> that? Again, needs subtask here if it's going to happen: > >> https://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-20885 > > > > Well, I volunteered for this item but "real life/job" got a hold on me > > since the last meeting. But now I'm getting more time for hacking. > > > > I wasn't aware about the QTBUG you linked us to. Thanks for that. And I > > can tell I'm far from having a precise plan about KAction merge. But I'll > > try to have one in a couple of weeks. > > Note that feature freeze of Qt is early February. > > There will be a feature window after that at some point, but it will become > even harder to get anything in after that especially with no clear plan.
Please note that the task is for Qt 5.0 blockers: stuff that needs to happen in 5.0 because it cannot happen in 5.1 or later releases. If this is about a few methods that need to change in QAction, it's probably fine to do them even after the feature freeze. If it's a major change, it needs to happen *now*. And by that I mean this week, starting tomorrow. Do not underestimate the power of nitpicking. Even experienced Qt developers get a lot comments to act on when making new APIs (see the QJsonDocument review, for example). -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.