> On 31 Aug 2023, at 19:15, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 31 August 2023 09:54:37 PDT Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
>>> It seems very unlikely that one would end up building for Qt x.y.z and
>>> then have their users on Qt x.y.(w>
>> With my Debian hat on: I really
On Thursday, 31 August 2023 09:54:37 PDT Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> > It seems very unlikely that one would end up building for Qt x.y.z and
> > then have their users on Qt x.y.(w
> With my Debian hat on: I really don't recall this happening ever. Having an
> app compiled
El jueves, 24 de agosto de 2023 13:09:18 -03 Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
escribió:
> On 24/08/2023 17:36, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> >
> > On platforms where Qt is a system library, being able to at least launch
> > your application if the system has a lower patch level than what the
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 05:43:06 PDT Lars Knoll via Development wrote:
> I personally think it’s worthwhile discussing this and maybe
> modifying/easing our policies here to some degree.
Unfortunately, this decision is partially hardcoded in our plugin loading
mechanism: we only check the
On 24/08/2023 17:36, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
On platforms where Qt is a system library, being able to at least launch your
application if the system has a lower patch level than what the binary was
built against sounds nice. But in practice, it’s rolling dice - the application
might work
> On 24 Aug 2023, at 14:43, Lars Knoll via Development
> wrote:
>
>
>> On 24 Aug 2023, at 14:30, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 22/08/2023 23:27, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>>> We have
>>>
> On 24 Aug 2023, at 14:30, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>
> On 22/08/2023 23:27, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>> We have
>> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B
>> for backwards binary compatibility issues and we have
>>
On 22/08/2023 23:27, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
We have
https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B
for backwards binary compatibility issues and we have
https://contribute.qt-project.org/quips/6 for acceptable and
unacceptable backwards source
On 23 Aug 2023, at 15:39, Marc Mutz via Development
wrote:
Hi,
I cannot find Eddy's email in between,
In case you're still looking for it:
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2023-August/044348.html
//! Paul
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 06:39:32 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> I cannot resist noting that the third item, in particular, is a problem
> for QOperatingSystemVersion, which, despite years of yours truly's
> hammering of that particular nail, is still exported as a
> non-polymorphic
> On 23 Aug 2023, at 15:09, Edward Welbourne via Development
> wrote:
>
> Lars Knoll (23 August 2023 13:32) wrote
>> We have been adding new enum values in certain cases. The operating
>> system versions needing to be amended to support a new version of
>> macOS is one example. That has
Hi,
I cannot find Eddy's email in between, but from what I can gleam from
Lars' quoting of it, I'd be fine with adding enum values in patch
releaes, provided that
- they're documented (with \since x.y._z_ for each x.y.z they were new
in (hypotheically, 6.5.3, 6.6.1, 6.7), and in
Lars Knoll (23 August 2023 13:32) wrote
> We have been adding new enum values in certain cases. The operating
> system versions needing to be amended to support a new version of
> macOS is one example. That has happened a couple of times within LTS
> releases as far as I remember.
>
> We’ve also
> On 23 Aug 2023, at 11:48, Edward Welbourne via Development
> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 14:27:09 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
I think we should decide what we mean by forward BC and SC and
describe it in https://wiki.qt.io/Qt-Version-Compatibility more
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 14:27:09 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>>> I think we should decide what we mean by forward BC and SC and
>>> describe it in https://wiki.qt.io/Qt-Version-Compatibility more
>>> precisely.
On 23.08.23 04:48, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> I thought the rule was "no
Hi Thiago,
On 23.08.23 04:48, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 14:27:09 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>> I think we should decide what we mean by forward BC and SC and describe
>> it in https://wiki.qt.io/Qt-Version-Compatibility more precisely.
>
> I thought the rule
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 14:27:09 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> I think we should decide what we mean by forward BC and SC and describe
> it in https://wiki.qt.io/Qt-Version-Compatibility more precisely.
I thought the rule was "no new symbols, period" with the exception for
Hi,
We have
https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B
for backwards binary compatibility issues and we have
https://contribute.qt-project.org/quips/6 for acceptable and
unacceptable backwards source compatibility.
However, please keep in mind that the Qt
18 matches
Mail list logo
