tube.com/QtStudios>
From: Development on behalf of Axel Spoerl
via Development
Date: Thursday, 26 September 2024 at 10:11
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to retain since version information in Qt
Documentation
Hi Paul, Christian, all,
Good arguments count,
Hi Paul, Christian, all,
Good arguments count, better arguments win.
+1 to keep \since 4.x as historic landmarks, and clarify rules for it.
Thanks for the discussion.
Cheers
Axel
> On 26 Sep 2024, at 08:45, Paul Wicking wrote:
>
>
>> On 24 Sep 2024, at 22:37, Axel Spoerl via Development
>>
> On 24 Sep 2024, at 22:37, Axel Spoerl via Development
> wrote:
>
>
> - It’s of course visible in cpp files. If I have my hands on C++, I tend to
> believe more in git blame’s version of the gospel.
Axel,
I wanted to mention something that slipped my mind yesterday. I agree that
version co
Am 24.09.2024 um 19:24 schrieb Christian Ehrlicher via Development:
Am 24.09.2024 um 15:12 schrieb Paul Wicking via Development:
Dear Qt Developers,
I am writing to address a series of recent code review changes that propose
removing the `\since [version]` documentation strings from various
> On 24 Sep 2024, at 23:13, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> We didn't start adding them until post 4.0. I don't think 3.x had the tag at
> all and APIs new in 4.0 weren't marked as such either. That means the
> furthest
> back we can go is 4.0. Qt 3 to 4 was also a massive update, so I don't think
Den ons 25 sep. 2024 kl 21:23 skrev Elvis Stansvik :
>
> Just to chime in as a user, the \since annotations have been very
> useful for me and I've used them extensively.
>
> In Qt 5 times, my usual workflow for finding QString docs used to be
> googling "qstring" and pressing the first hit.
>
> Wh
> On 24 Sep 2024, at 22:37, Axel Spoerl via Development
> wrote:
>
> Some thoughts to add:
>
> - I can’t seem to find any pattern / rules as to when a \since tag was added
> in the past. Some APIs have a \since 4.x tag, some have nothing at all.
> Putting effort into regulating the removal
Just to chime in as a user, the \since annotations have been very
useful for me and I've used them extensively.
In Qt 5 times, my usual workflow for finding QString docs used to be
googling "qstring" and pressing the first hit.
When Qt 6 came along and googling "qstring" gave the Qt 6 page as
fir
> On 24 Sep 2024, at 19:24, Christian Ehrlicher via Development
> wrote:
>
> You're aware that noone will see those \since tags in any documentation
> except he builds it by himself (which even I did not manage until now for
> unknown reasons - maybe because I try to build the documentation
On 24 Sep 2024, at 17:48, Kai Köhne wrote:
Just keep in mind that we weren't always strict about adding these in the past,
so for
accurate results, git history is arguably the more reliable source. That is,
unless you're
interested in changes that predate the big git import in Qt 4 times 😉
Y
> On 25 Sep 2024, at 06:41, EXT Mitch Curtis wrote:
>
> I'm confused... \since does show up in the generated documentation:
>
> - https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qml-qtquick-item.html#focusPolicy-prop
> - https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qml-qtquick-listview.html#displayMarginBeginning-prop
>
Hey Mitch!
The
> On 24 Sep 2024, at 15:12, Paul Wicking via Development
> wrote:
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1. Retain Existing `\since` Annotations: I propose that we keep the `\since
> [version]` annotations in the documentation, even for older versions like Qt
> 4.x, to preserve this valuable information for tho
tch
Curtis via Development
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2024 12:41 PM
To: Qt development mailing list; Paul Wicking; Kai Köhne
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt
Documentation
I'm confused... \since does show up in the generated documentation:
-
t;From: Development on behalf of Kai Köhne
>via Development
>Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 11:48 PM
>To: Qt development mailing list; Paul Wicking
>Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt
>Documentation
>
>Hi,
>
>I d
ia Development
Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 11:48 PM
To: Qt development mailing list; Paul Wicking
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt
Documentation
Hi,
I don't feel strongly about '\since 5.x' , or '\since 4.y '. Gi
m: Development on behalf of Thiago
Macieira
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 11:33 PM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt
Documentation
On Tuesday 24 September 2024 14:22:06 GMT-7 Jaroslaw Kobus via Development
wrote:
> >
On Tuesday 24 September 2024 14:22:06 GMT-7 Jaroslaw Kobus via Development
wrote:
> > We didn't start adding them until post 4.0. I don't think 3.x had the tag
> > at all and APIs new in 4.0 weren't marked as such either. That means the
> > furthest back we can go is 4.0. Qt 3 to 4 was also a mass
G'Day Paul,
Thank you for raising this issue.
As someone who has performed archaeology on Qt many times over the years, I
would prefer to keep the \since data intact. In the past, this information
has saved me time by helping me to narrow down my investigations to a much
shorter segment of Qt's h
> On Tuesday 24 September 2024 13:37:13 GMT-7 Axel Spoerl via Development wrote:
> > - I can’t seem to find any pattern / rules as to when a \since tag was added
> > in the past. Some APIs have a \since 4.x tag, some have nothing at all.
> > Putting effort into regulating the removal of something,
On Tuesday 24 September 2024 13:37:13 GMT-7 Axel Spoerl via Development wrote:
> - I can’t seem to find any pattern / rules as to when a \since tag was added
> in the past. Some APIs have a \since 4.x tag, some have nothing at all.
> Putting effort into regulating the removal of something, that has
Some thoughts to add:
- I can’t seem to find any pattern / rules as to when a \since tag was added in
the past. Some APIs have a \since 4.x tag, some have nothing at all. Putting
effort into regulating the removal of something, that has been added in an
unregulated way, is totally OK if it’s a
> History and easy access to historical data /is/ important to some people,
> insofar
> at least the commit message in the changes is wrong.
>
> Andre'
The \since info, even when informing about something that got introduced 20
years ago,
isn't a noise IMO, definitely. It's hard to see that it
Am 24.09.2024 um 15:12 schrieb Paul Wicking via Development:
Dear Qt Developers,
I am writing to address a series of recent code review changes that propose
removing the `\since [version]` documentation strings from various modules in
Qt:
...
By making these adjustments, we can ensure that
> [...]
> > I am writing to address a series of recent code review changes that propose
> > removing the `\since [version]` documentation strings from various modules
> > in
> > Qt:
> >
> > - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/592996/2
> > - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtb
stick to this for the generated documentation, \since tags for older Qt
> versions in the
> source code don't do much harm. But the benefits are really small, either.
> Should we just leave this to the individual maintainer to decide?
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> KaiF
ally small, either.
Should we just leave this to the individual maintainer to decide?
My 2 cents,
Kai
From: Development on behalf of Paul
Wicking via Development
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 15:12
To: Qt development mailing list
Subject: [Development] Proposal to
While I am not a member of the Qt development group, as a user of Qt, I would
support the proposals that Paul made to *not* remove /since
Regards
David Partridge
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Dear Qt Developers,
I am writing to address a series of recent code review changes that propose
removing the `\since [version]` documentation strings from various modules in
Qt:
- https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/592996/2
- https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/592997/2
-
28 matches
Mail list logo
