El Sunday 15 February 2015, Sune Vuorela escribió: > On 2015-02-15, Alejandro Exojo <[email protected]> wrote: > > People might rely on the function in proprietary applications in ways > > that are impossible to predict. > > Every time we fix a bug, we might introduce regressions for people > relying on the bugs. That's not a reason for not fixing a bug.
I fail to see how changing QLibraryInfo::buildDate to return a hardcoded string instead of the intended build date is fixing a bug. Is obvious that you are breaking a feature in order to gain a different one that you think is more valuable. I could agree with you on this, but not at the cost of breaking a previous feature in a minor release of Qt. It worries me a lot to see this kind of changes in minor releases. It sets a precedent. Not only that. I still think that you could have the reproducible builds feature without introducing breakage: just fake the date. Hardcode the date where you care about the issue, and not for everybody else. I see there is something already available on Debian: https://packages.debian.org/sid/sdate -- Alex (a.k.a. suy) | GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2 http://barnacity.net/ | http://disperso.net _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
