On 23 Aug 2023, at 15:39, Marc Mutz via Development
wrote:
Hi,
I cannot find Eddy's email in between,
In case you're still looking for it:
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2023-August/044348.html
//! Paul
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 06:39:32 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> I cannot resist noting that the third item, in particular, is a problem
> for QOperatingSystemVersion, which, despite years of yours truly's
> hammering of that particular nail, is still exported as a
> non-polymorphic
> On 23 Aug 2023, at 15:09, Edward Welbourne via Development
> wrote:
>
> Lars Knoll (23 August 2023 13:32) wrote
>> We have been adding new enum values in certain cases. The operating
>> system versions needing to be amended to support a new version of
>> macOS is one example. That has
Hi,
I cannot find Eddy's email in between, but from what I can gleam from
Lars' quoting of it, I'd be fine with adding enum values in patch
releaes, provided that
- they're documented (with \since x.y._z_ for each x.y.z they were new
in (hypotheically, 6.5.3, 6.6.1, 6.7), and in
Lars Knoll (23 August 2023 13:32) wrote
> We have been adding new enum values in certain cases. The operating
> system versions needing to be amended to support a new version of
> macOS is one example. That has happened a couple of times within LTS
> releases as far as I remember.
>
> We’ve also
> On 23 Aug 2023, at 11:48, Edward Welbourne via Development
> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 14:27:09 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
I think we should decide what we mean by forward BC and SC and
describe it in https://wiki.qt.io/Qt-Version-Compatibility more
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 14:27:09 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>>> I think we should decide what we mean by forward BC and SC and
>>> describe it in https://wiki.qt.io/Qt-Version-Compatibility more
>>> precisely.
On 23.08.23 04:48, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> I thought the rule was "no
