> On 19 Oct 2023, at 15:55, Phil Thompson via Development > <development@qt-project.org> wrote: > > On 19/10/2023 12:07, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: >> 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/6 >> I'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, > > As I said I completely understand the reason for the change. QUIP-6 dates > back to 2017 and the function itself dates back to 2005, so why now? Why not > deprecate now and remove in v6.7?
I happened to look at the API because Christian applied some much needed TLC to Qt Sql, and we got a new Qt Sql driver contribution as well. Deprecating it wouldn’t have been possible because we couldn’t have added a replacement API that would have been unambiguous, without coming up with a new function name. So you would have gotten the deprecation warning without a sensible way to fix your code. > Also, can anybody point me to the ChangeLog for v6.6? (I want to find the > entry with the [Potentially Source-Incompatible Changes] tag.) The release notes with changes are here: https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtreleasenotes.git/about/qt/6.6.0/release-note.md But, looking at the commit message of 3f72b0d5fc70d3cf7daa4badccd5a40fc8b0726a, I fear that you are catching me red-handed :( Volker -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
