Am Mo., 3. Juni 2019 um 01:20 Uhr schrieb Konstantin Tokarev <annu...@yandex.ru>:
> 03.06.2019, 02:10, "Manuel Bergler" <bergle...@gmail.com>: > > Am Mo., 3. Juni 2019 um 00:09 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kofler > > <kevin.kof...@chello.at>: > > > >> What you call "obsolete functionality" is functionality that existing code > >> relies on and rightfully expects to remain there. > >> > >> I'd rather get fewer (or even no) new features than losing existing ones. > >> > >> See also Boudewijn Rempt's blog post on the subject: > >> https://valdyas.org/fading/hacking/happy-porting/ > > > > I fully disagree with the sentiment in that blog post. If you don't > > want to port, fine, but then also use whatever version of Qt you were > > using before and don't try to use the latest and greatest. > > But FOSS software has to port, or it will be deemed to be "unmaintained > application, which then rightfully should get dropped by distributions" > (quoting Giuseppe's mail). And this is where we come full circle :) Yes, FOSS needs to port, so we should make porting as easy as possible. In particular, there shouldn't be too many breaking changes all at once as that would make porting a multi-month project. Instead, spread out the breaking changes by also allowing them in minor releases. Best Manuel _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
