On 19/10/2023 12:07, Phil Thompson via Development wrote:
Up until v6.6 upgrading to a new version was relatively low risk but this will just encourage people to stay on older versions. Is this a mistake or a change in policy?
There is actually a policy document that says that certain source breaks are acceptable, especially the ones that prevent mistakes from users:
https://contribute.qt-project.org/quips/6I'm not really sure about the real-world impact of the change in question, but there's an argument that this fits the QUIP-6 bill:
* if you have a non-const QSqlRecord object, you can keep calling boundValues(). You would still get a mutable reference to the bound arguments -- that is, that is 100% API compatible.
* If you have a const QSqlRecord, and you're trying to mutate the bound values, then your code rightfully stops compiling, as you're not supposed to do that. You can fix this in a way that works with Qt before and after 6.6. So, you should do that.
Granted, each source-incompatible change disrupts _someone_ _somehow_. I'm not sure where to draw the line: "this has to wait 10 years for Qt 7" vs. "we should be changing this now, as we're making users a disservice with a suboptimal/dangerous/misleading API" are both valid arguments, but it's not a binary choice, it's much more of a gradient. For this specific change, it's also interesting that it landed after 6.5, giving people plenty of time to adapt.
My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
