On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:21:46 ext Artur Souza (MoRpHeUz) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > - It's not clear what to do with "import QtQuick 2.0". Should we keep > > that or go back to "import Qt 5.0" for importing the basic stuff from Qt > > Essentials? > > IMHO using "import Qt 5.0" is much more clear than the current "import > QtQuick 1.0". As QML is not a Qt Add-on but part of Qt Essentials, it > makes sense to follow the Qt Essentials' version.
It's also not all of Qt, so at the very most it would be "import QtQuick 5.0". > Another advantage is that it's way easier to know which version you > can import. Right now you should know that with Qt 4.7.4 you can > import QtQuick 1.1 but it's just not intuitive at all. But it is clearly documented. It's not a difficult thing to find out (although I agree that intuitive would be better). If the minor versions grow independent of the Qt minor version though then this isn't actually going to help - will Qt 5.5.4 contain QtQuick 5.5, 5.9, 5.16? The advantages of the other approach is that we can be honest about the version numbers. The major and minor version implications for Qt and QML have diverged slightly, especially in the patch releases. A patch release for Qt should not affect public C++ API, and this is entirely consistent with a new minor release of QML (which can add new QML API, the QML versioning system allows this to be safe). -- Alan Alpert Senior Engineer Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
