Christian clarified (privately) that any major versions older than 5 listed in \since won't show up in the generated documentation. Keeping a span of one major version of \since around seems reasonable enough, but do we really gain much by removing these old \since lines? On the other hand, asking users to refer to archived versions of the docs is not unreasonable, especially for such old versions. I'd still argue that there's more benefit to the user having that added convenience, though.
________________________________________ From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of EXT Mitch Curtis via Development <development@qt-project.org> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2024 12:41 PM To: Qt development mailing list; Paul Wicking; Kai Köhne Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt Documentation I'm confused... \since does show up in the generated documentation: - https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qml-qtquick-item.html#focusPolicy-prop - https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qml-qtquick-listview.html#displayMarginBeginning-prop For what it's worth, my vote goes for keeping that information too. As a user it's much more convenient for me to be able to use the latest versions of the docs that search engines give me and be able to see when an API was introduced, even if I'm using an old major version. ________________________________________ From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Kai Köhne via Development <development@qt-project.org> Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 11:48 PM To: Qt development mailing list; Paul Wicking Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt Documentation Hi, I don't feel strongly about '\since 5.x' , or '\since 4.y '. Given that it doesn't show up in the generated documentation, it is IMO of little value, and I was happily approving such changes in the past. But it's also true that it doesn't cost us much to keep these lines, so if people that browse the sources find them useful ... fair. Just keep in mind that we weren't always strict about adding these in the past, so for accurate results, git history is arguably the more reliable source. That is, unless you're interested in changes that predate the big git import in Qt 4 times 😉 Anyhow, I think I would oppose trying to make https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/<https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtcore-index.html> documentation 'work' for Qt 5, let alone Qt 4. For one, we have dropped documentation for removed modules, removed API, abandoned platforms between major versions, and bringing these back is IMO unfeasible. Sure, there are also classes that are still available since Qt 4, so for these stable parts you could use Qt 6 documentation even if you write a Qt 4 hello-world. But what for? https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/<https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtcore-index.html> is the documentation for Qt 6. People that have to work with Qt 5 are better off with https://doc.qt.io/qt-5<https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/>, and for Qt 4.8 with https://doc.qt.io/archives/qt-4.8/. So let's not imply that any API documentation on https://doc.qt.io/qt-6 is anything but Qt 6. For changes between major versions, we have dedicated 'What's new' pages. If we stick to this for the generated documentation, \since tags for older Qt versions in the source code don't do much harm. But the benefits are really small, either. Should we just leave this to the individual maintainer to decide? My 2 cents, Kai ________________________________ From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Paul Wicking via Development <development@qt-project.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 15:12 To: Qt development mailing list <development@qt-project.org> Subject: [Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt Documentation Dear Qt Developers, I am writing to address a series of recent code review changes that propose removing the `\since [version]` documentation strings from various modules in Qt: - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/592996/2 - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/592997/2 - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/592998/2 - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/592999/2 - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/593000/2 The commit message for these changes states: > "Remove all \since 4.x comments in [module name] - this is no longer of interest." I would like to express my concerns regarding this proposal and advocate for retaining the `\since` version information in our documentation. I believe that removing this information could have unintended negative consequences, and I would like to outline several reasons why this metadata remains valuable: 1. Support for Legacy Systems: Many organizations continue to maintain legacy systems built with older versions of Qt, such as Qt 4. Developers working on these systems might refer to the latest documentation when exploring potential upgrades or seeking to understand the evolution of the API. Knowing when a feature was introduced helps them determine compatibility and avoid using unsupported features. 2. Maintenance and Debugging: When maintaining or debugging legacy code, understanding when certain features were added can be crucial. If a piece of code utilizes a feature that wasn't available in the version it's supposed to run on, it can lead to issues. The `\since` annotations provide immediate insight into such potential problems. 3. Migration Planning: Teams planning to upgrade from an older version of Qt to a newer one benefit from knowing when features were introduced. It aids in mapping out the migration process, identifying features that can now be used, and recognizing deprecated features that need replacement. 4. Historical Context and Learning: The `\since` information offers valuable historical context about the evolution of Qt's APIs. It helps developers understand the progression of the framework, which can be educational and foster a deeper appreciation for its development. 5. Third-Party Dependencies: Some third-party libraries and integrations may rely on specific versions of Qt. Knowing when features were introduced helps in assessing compatibility and ensuring seamless integration. 6. Compliance and Regulatory Requirements: In industries with strict compliance and regulatory standards—such as healthcare or finance—thorough documentation is essential. Including version information meets these requirements by providing a clear record of software capabilities over time. 7. Global Teams and Staggered Updates: In large organizations with teams distributed across different regions, not everyone may update to the latest version simultaneously. Comprehensive documentation ensures that all teams have the necessary information, regardless of the version they are using. 8. Professionalism and Trust: Providing detailed version information demonstrates a commitment to thorough and professional documentation. It builds trust with the developer community and helps avoid assumptions that could lead to implementation errors. 9. No Cost to Retain \since Annotations: There is virtually no maintenance overhead in keeping the \since annotations. Once added, they remain static and do not require ongoing updates. Removing them does not offer any tangible benefits but does eliminate potentially valuable information. 10. Mechanisms to Prevent Clutter: Concerns about the \since annotations cluttering the documentation can be addressed through existing mechanisms. QDoc provides an `ignoresince` configuration variable. This feature allows us to control the visibility of \since annotations in the generated documentation. It's the result of a concern prior to the release of Qt 6, that references to older versions might negatively impact SEO. This current discussion has sparked an internal initiative within the QDoc development team to enhance how QDoc handles ignoresince information. Potential improvements include making the information subject to a user-defined cutoff version in the online documentation. Benefit: By utilizing these mechanisms, we can prevent any perceived clutter without deleting the valuable historical data from our source code. While I am fully aware that our oldest Long-Term Support (LTS) version is currently 5.15, and developers working with Qt 4 are encouraged to refer to Qt 4 documentation, in practice, the availability and accessibility of older documentation can be limited. Additionally, developers may not always realize they're consulting documentation for a newer version, despite the fact that we have a version selector for a limited subset of documentation sets in the online documentation. As an example, consider a recent discussion on the development mailing list where understanding the historical context was essential: - Why does QFlag exist? (Not QFlags): https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2024-September/045636.html In this case, digging into the history from 2003 was necessary to understand a current issue. The `\since` annotations (had they been there) could serve as valuable indicators for such deep dives, highlighting how far back one might need to look. I also recognize that the maintenance overhead for `\since` annotations is minimal—they are static after their initial addition. Removing them does not significantly declutter the documentation but does eliminate potentially valuable information. Proposal: 1. Retain Existing `\since` Annotations: I propose that we keep the `\since [version]` annotations in the documentation, even for older versions like Qt 4.x, to preserve this valuable information for those who may need it. 2. Revert Previously Merged Changes: Consider reverting the changes that have already been merged, which removed `\since` annotations, to restore the completeness of our documentation. 3. Establish a Clear Documentation Policy: To prevent similar disputes in the future, we should develop a clear and unambiguous policy regarding the inclusion of version information in our documentation. This policy would provide guidance to contributors and maintainers, ensuring consistency and preserving the integrity of our documentation. By making these adjustments, we can ensure that our documentation remains a comprehensive resource for all developers—whether they're maintaining legacy systems, planning migrations, or simply seeking to understand the evolution of Qt. I welcome further discussion on this matter and would appreciate hearing other perspectives. Thank you for considering this proposal. Personal note: I must admit that I was hesitant to bring this matter to the mailing list, as it feels somewhat like an escalation. However, the interest and contrasting opinions expressed by multiple reviewers on these patches indicate that it would be beneficial to have a project-wide discussion. While this issue may not seem critically important in isolation, I believe it holds meaningful implications for our documentation practices and, more broadly, for how we make decisions that impact the developer community. I also feel that it's not my responsibility to block these changes based on personal reservations. Given that there are strong opinions on both sides, it seems appropriate for us as a community to reach a consensus. A collective decision would ensure that our actions reflect the values and needs of the entire Qt project. It is thus with the utmost respect for the author of these patches and the time and effort put in to make these and other contributions that I raise these questions on the mailing list. -- Best regards, Paul Wicking Staff Software Engineer Qt Group -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
