On Friday, June 27, 2014 12:37:21 Jocelyn Turcotte wrote: > We'll always have a 1-to-1 mapping of QtWebEngine and Qt versions and > we'll always distribute/test them together. If we release QtWebEngine > 1.u.v with Qt 5.x.y, then QtWebEngine 1.u+1.v will also depend on Qt 5.x.y.
This also looks like an argument in favor of not doing what it says. > > The two advantages that this gives us is that we can release QtWebEngine > more often than Qt, if we want to, and that we can have a version number > that reflects our maturity and not the maturity of Qt as a whole. > > Those are not very important advantages I agree, they look unimportant. > and we can give them away if you > guys think that we should stick to the Qt version number, but I'll let you > debate over that part. On the other hand, I think that our plan addresses > all the issues that you raised, so le me know if there is anything that > we're overseeing, Thanks. By addressing the issues raised, you've made me more sure that the issues are real, and disparate version schemes should not be used. 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
