Artur wrote: > > But for Qt 5, and QML being at the core of it I think we should plan a > > little bit more the releases. If QML had a so urgent need of releasing > > something, Qt as a project should manage that and release a minor > > version (not a *patch* release).
Alan wrote: > If you're saying that Qt 5 releases can move at QML's pace, that would work > as well. It would mean that Qt 5 minor releases will have a tighter schedule > than Qt 4 minor releases, something that is not yet certain to be feasible. Is this a matter of how we define the version numbering? I agree with Arthur that we should reserve patch releases to important bug fixes. At the same time, there is no law that requires all C++ modules to be updated for each minor release. Especially since Qt5 is developed modularly. After 5.0, we really should move to time based minor releases, where it is perfectly fine to not update each and every module. If Qt Quick needs to release new features but other modules don't need, then the next Qt 5 minor release would have a new version of Qt Quick but the same old versions of Qt MultimediaKit, Qt WebKit etc. Best regards, Henry _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
