On 10/12/15 15:37, "Development on behalf of Koehne Kai" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Development [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Oswald Buddenhagen >> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:45 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Development] buildsystem now needs to keep behaviour >> compatibility >> >> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:04:40PM +0100, Olivier Goffart wrote: >> > On Wednesday 2. December 2015 10:17:57 Joerg Bornemann wrote: >> > > We should then keep build tests for these modules in the CI. >> > > Otherwise we won't notice breakages. >> > >> > I agree. >> > >> this is true. >> but that basically defeats the whole point, which was not needing to care >> about these modules any more. >> >> now reality caught up already and it turns out that i broke webkit. >> well, what i actually did, i broke bug-to-bug compatibility, which exposed a >> pre-existing problem in webkit, as it usually goes. >> >> it would be possible to revert the respective qmake change (and uglify the >> surrounding code), but i don't think it's reasonable to enforce this type of >> stagnation - we generally accept that code which relies on undefined or >> outright broken behavior is broken by fixes. >> >> so how do we go from there? i see several options: >> - continue to drag along webkit and the other deprecated modules. the >> additional cost of actually doing that in addition to compatibility >> testing is rather low with the new CI. > >I think this is a good compromise. Let's do at least some minimal compile >testing before a release, and fix the stuff that's absolutely necessary. We >can talk again in case we run into issues that would require some real work... +1. This is probably the best compromise we can come up with. Cheers, Lars > >https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-49883 > >Regards > >Kai > > >> - release further 5.5.x versions of these modules when necessary. i >> expect this to be a lot more effort than the first option, so it >> doesn't seem reasonable. >> - simply accept that it's broken, and tell people to apply patches. >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >_______________________________________________ >Development mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
