On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 05:40:28AM +0000, Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > On 13.12.23 18:36, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > So, +1 for me on going ahead. > > Thanks! > > Is anyone else here for/against?
To me this doesn't look like a new feature, so I don't see the feature freeze blocking this formally. But there is also no rule that everything that is formally permitted /has/ to be done. The time after the feature freeze is also useful to get some field testing by the few early adopters, and providing an effectly moving target there does not really help the cause. Recently there were two serious regression on the Qt side due to "just using string views" (which would also be formally permitted), and I've seen now a patch that changes a map to a hash to avoid part of the porting "work" to the new comparison scheme that makes that change not quite "mechanical". So, sure, in a perfect world, this kind of activity would be neutral, but apparently it is possible to fumble. Maybe I am just generally lacking a certain sense of urgency here to have this kind of changes, but I think it would be better to avoid the risk by simply not doing it. Andre' -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
