On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > On quinta-feira, 8 de novembro de 2012 11.02.23, Alan Alpert wrote: >> I know commits go to Qt5 first, but with the issue of QtQuick there's >> different implementations for QtQuick 1 and QtQuick 2. I don't think >> it's a good idea for QtQuick 1 (Qt 5) to gain new features that are >> withheld from QtQuick 1 (Qt 4), so if the feature is too big to add to >> Qt 4.x, then it should just skip QtQuick 1. Which is not too appealing >> until Qt 5 is out and QtQuick 2 is actually in use. > > I don't agree to that. I think the feature can be added to Qt Quick 1 in Qt 5 > and not added to the older version in Qt 4. But, if it's relevant, it should > be added to Qt Quick 2 too (first?)
Definitely added to QtQuick 2 too (maybe not first, but that would be purely an implementation detail). But I'm not sure what the usecase is for extending QtQuick1 in Qt5 only? Isn't the primary point of QtQuick 1 in Qt5 to provide a smooth migration path? QtQuick 1 in Qt5 is "Done" (unless this has changed), so if a feature is important enough to ignore that classification in Qt5, I think it would also be important enough to ignore the done status of Qt 4. The impression I'm getting is also that it's probably not important enough to add to QtQuick 1. -- Alan Alpert _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
