I think that moving Qt smart pointers to Qt5Compat module creates almost no hassle. For Qt users it should be a one line in the terminal to replace includes in their code bases (probably also prepend a namespace to classes' names, but I'm not sure if there is a namespace).
In general, I'd say that this is another problem should be addressed separately. Feel free to kick off a new thread. My personal opinion on this topic is that Qt has wrong release cycle now. We should make a major release each year (and this year is a good time in terms of marketing :) ). The text you quoted is about fighting with consequences rather than about fixing a cause. On 2/12/20 7:37 PM, André Pönitz wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:13:17AM +0000, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote: >>>> We should also move Qt smart pointers to Qt5Compat module. The >>>> destiny of QPointer is not well defined so far. >>> This was not part of the research and should probably discussed >>> separately. >> I agree. But if we decide using standard smart pointers, why >> should we keep Qt smart pointers as a part of Qt6? > https://www.qt.io/blog/2019/08/07/technical-vision-qt-6 > > "Compatibility with older versions is extremely important and is a > major requirement when we develop Qt 6. There are billions of lines > of code written using our framework and any incompatible change we > do will thus have a cost for our users. Furthermore, the more work > the change to Qt 6 requires from our users the slower the adoption > will be, which leads to more cost on our side to maintain the last > version of Qt 5." > > Already now the jump from, say, 5.12 to Qt dev is way bigger than > the whole Qt 4 -> Qt 5 upgrade was, adding more to that does > definitely not help with Qt 6 adoption. > > Andre' -- Best Regards, Fanaskov Vitaly Senior Software Engineer The Qt Company / Qt Quick and Widgets Team _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
