On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > I also prefer not adding backward source incompatible changes to Qt 4.8. Is > there any precedent for doing it though? Do we know for sure whether it is > binary incompatible or not to add an enum value?
AFAIK It's binary compatible, unless adding that value causes the enum to change size. > I don't know anything about why creating a minor release is more complex > than creating a patch release, so I can't comment there. I imagine the release itself isn't so much the problem (a tarball is a tarball, after all) as the complexity around then having a 4.8 and 4.9 branch, merging fixes up from 4.8 to 4.9 (and 5.0 first still...) plus the additional load on CI infra. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
