> -----Original Message----- > From: Sérgio Martins <iamser...@gmail.com> > Sent: Dienstag, 23. März 2021 20:40 > To: Maurice Kalinowski <maurice.kalinow...@qt.io> > Cc: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>; Volker Hilsheimer > <volker.hilshei...@qt.io>; Qt Interest <interest@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:23 PM Maurice Kalinowski > <maurice.kalinow...@qt.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > Not all deprecations are bad. However, I still maintain that *some* > > > of the Qt > > > 6 changes are problematic. Also, TBH, I think the real issue is less > > > that Qt 6 made changes, and more that Qt 5 support got pulled well > > > before Qt 6 is viable for most folks. That didn't happen with Qt 4 → 5. > > > > > > I also don't recall Qt 4.8 suddenly deprecating a bunch of stuff > > > that was immediately removed in Qt 5.0, although I may be wrong about > that. > > > > > [Maurice Kalinowski] > > There was, plenty of them, more than from Qt 5 to Qt 6. > > And even more so, we had not the time to do deprecation warnings, like > you can enable now when building against 5.15. > > Hence, the migration should be (and according to user discussions is) much > easier for this major release. > > > > Another aspect I would like to reiterate is why not all modules are > > available > with the initial 6.0 release. > > > > For Qt 5.0 we tried to get everything over in one big go. The problem was > that many of the features and behavior changes did not get fully executed > through the leaf modules. That led to the situation that we couldn't do many > modernizations afterwards again due to binary compatibility promises in the > Qt 5 series. Thus, the approach was/is to have 6.0 with the set of most used > modules. > > From there get verification by users, that the changes have been in the > right direction and broaden the module support then. As that allows to focus > on bringing over modernization to those leaf modules, but also have > dedicated time to modernize these as well. > > > > From what we've seen on reviews on blogs/articles/tweets/... this > approach works. Admittedly, with not everyone being able to migrate as of > now. But I strongly believe that with 6.2 we will have a much better Qt > compared to taking the same approach as with Qt 4->5, even at 5.2 times. > > That's not a fair comparison.
And I don't think it is fair to now merge a separate discussion into this. Generally, this thread contains way too many topics at once to be able to keep a streamlined discussion. > After Qt 5.0 was released in 2012 we still saw several Qt 4 bugfix releases > (up > until 2015). > With the situation now, we're in a limbo, there's no 6.2 and there's no Qt5 > open-source bugfix releases. > I can see this concern from your side, totally. But as mentioned above, I commented on the part whether removals have happened between Qt 4 and 5. And they did, in worse fashion. Maurice _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
