On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 09:41:53 you wrote: > I think we should keep the Qt5 in the library names. Consistency is a good > thing. Making it completely free makes it harder to recognise what’s part > of Qt and what isn’t. > > So IMO we should try to see how we can fix this going forward.
I agree. I don't know how it can be ensured though. The current Enginio name went through several people. The process let this through, so there is probably a problem in the process? Another issue is whether to fix Enginio. Apparently it does things 'different' because it was desired to have a disparate release schedule and version scheme. Nothing appeared on this mailing list about doing that for this particular case with Enginio. I think that should have been discussed here as it sets precedent. Nevertheless, because Enginio uses a disparate scheme, that means that this situation can be 'fixed' by bumping the major version number, fixing the library name and the include directory name. What do you think? Thanks, -- Join us at Qt Developer Days 2014 in Berlin! - https://devdays.kdab.com Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
