On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:42:23AM +0000, Karsten Heimrich wrote: > -----Original Message----- > >From: André Pönitz <[email protected]> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. Februar > >2020 19:38 Uhr To: Vitaly Fanaskov <[email protected]> Cc: > >Karsten Heimrich <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [Development] The future of smart pointers in Qt API > > > >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. > > We probably could move it to Qt5Compat first, so that lifetime ends > with Qt6.
I wouldn't even object to that. Except, maybe, that in the age of limited resources spending there might me more beneficial ways to spend them ;-} > But as mentioned already, we did not even discuss anything > there like... Indeed. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
