On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 May 2012 20:03, Girish Ramakrishnan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Andreas, >> >> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Andreas Holzammer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wanted to backport the support for Windows 8 to Qt 4.8, which is >>> already done for Qt5 in https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,22940 >>> With this change a symbol is added and therefore binary compatibility is >>> broken. I know i cannot do that for Qt 4.8, so my question if we should >>> do this anyhow or how we want to handle this. >>> >> >> That change preserves BC (enums don't create symbols either). It only >> breaks SC between patch releases which we avoid. >> >> I think it's fine to backport it and mark the enum with \internal for qdoc. > > But that breaks the purpose of the patch: having a public&documented > way for Qt apps to detect if they're running under Windows 8. >
I thought the main purpose was to let Qt know about the existence of Windows 8. Usually, code in Qt usually just does >= VISTA. But if the goal is for the user to use it, then yes, we have a problem. > Generally speaking, are there no plans of going towards 4.9 for this > kind of things? Or slightly change the policies for what regards 4.8? > I would actually like to see a 4.9. At the very minimum, a master branch in qt4 repo would be nice to have. But the logistics both creating a minor release (and post minor release) will require somebody to step up and invest a lot of time. Do we have someone who can invest such time there? Otherwise, it only makes sense to change our policy a little. Girish _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
