On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > On quinta-feira, 8 de novembro de 2012 15.36.23, Alan Alpert wrote: >> 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. > > "Done" does not mean we can't add small new features, especially if they are > convenience for something you can already do by another method. > > However, Qt 4.8 cannot receive new features nor new symbols. If there were a > Qt 4.9, we could add the change there.
Exactly. I'd be quite happy with a small, important new feature being added to QtQuick 1 in 5.1, and QtQuick 1 in 4.9. It's not the exact same time, so it's a little crummy, but it's still an attempt at maintaining a single "QtQuick 1" API. -- Alan Alpert _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
