On 09/06/15 16:41, "[email protected] on behalf of Thiago Macieira" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>On Tuesday 09 June 2015 07:35:45 Knoll Lars wrote: >> On 08/06/15 23:58, "development-bounces+lars.knoll=theqtcompany.com@qt- >project.org on behalf of Thiago Macieira" <development- >[email protected] on behalf of >[email protected]> wrote: >> >On Monday 08 June 2015 22:31:15 Marc Mutz wrote: >> >> It would probably be a good idea to do an additional header diff (incl. >> >> new >> >> headers) on the ML after the alpha. I don't follow the development of >> >> modules other than QtBase closely, nor do I want to, and apparently I'm >> >> too >> >> strict a reviewer to be regularly invited on new API >> >> Agree. Let's put this into our planning for 5.6. One header diff/review at >> the time we branch 5.6, and a final one to cross-check before the RC. > >I don't think this is a header diff review. > >This is an API review, where we have people who've written new classes to come >and present their API. They should do that in fact even as the feature is >being finalised and is getting integrated. > >We can initiate it by doing a dump of new classes in the release. That should >be easy, all we need is to compare include/QtXxxx/ file listing. > >We'd still need a header diff for new functions in existing classes. Usually, >those are minor additions. Sorry, maybe bad wording from my side. But with a header diff I meant a full diff that would include also new files/classes. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
