Den tors 28 maj 2026 20:07Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> skrev:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2026 10:39:27 Pacific Daylight Time Volker Hilsheimer > via > Development wrote: > > The established and documented rules for semi-private APIs like QPA and > RHI > > are: > > > > - no changes within a patch cycle > > - changes (both source- and binary-incompatible) might happen between > minor > > releases > > What would be the difference to an experimental module? I'd assume that if > we > are trying to get people to adopt experimental things, we wouldn't break > at > will within a minor series. That would make the rules equivalent to the > semi- > private. > > The difference is that experimental has a goal of becoming > non-experimental > some day. > And conversely, the name "experimental" also acknowledges that the experiment might end (i.e. fail). The same is probably not true for rhi etc? So the name experimental is probably not suitable for two different reasons? > > This is documented here: > > > > https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qrhi.html#details > > https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qpa.html > > > > (with slightly different wording and style, but saying the same thing). > > > > Headers are installed, code using them might have to link against a > private > > module. > > For all new things, please ensure syncqt puts the headers in the private > block > inside of QtModulename.version, for ELF builds. It does for RHI and QPA. > > That means relinking after every patch release. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Principal Engineer - Intel DCG - Platform & Sys. Eng. > -- > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development >
-- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
