On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:51 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo
wrote:
> Uhm... didn't they decide exactly against this? I might have missed the
> memo.
>
Well, apparently I did.
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:05 PM Volker Hilsheimer
wrote:
> You didn’t miss any memo. Konstantin, I wonder (genuinely to see what w
> On 7 Apr 2021, at 17:44, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
> On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 16:53:16 CEST Henry Skoglund wrote:
>> On 2021-04-07 16:11, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
On 7 Apr 2021, at 15:55, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 15:18:10 CEST Giuseppe D'An
On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 16:53:16 CEST Henry Skoglund wrote:
> On 2021-04-07 16:11, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> >> On 7 Apr 2021, at 15:55, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 15:18:10 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo via
> >> Development
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Il 07/04/21 1
On 2021-04-07 16:11, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
On 7 Apr 2021, at 15:55, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 15:18:10 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
Il 07/04/21 14:56, Sze Howe Koh ha scritto:
Is it acceptable to remove them during Qt 6's lifetime? Or should w
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 22:14, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>
> > On 7 Apr 2021, at 15:55, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> >
> > On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 15:18:10 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> > wrote:
> >> Il 07/04/21 14:56, Sze Howe Koh ha scritto:
> >>> Is it acceptable to remove them du
> On 7 Apr 2021, at 15:55, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
> On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 15:18:10 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>> Il 07/04/21 14:56, Sze Howe Koh ha scritto:
>>> Is it acceptable to remove them during Qt 6's lifetime? Or should we
>>> wait till Qt 7?
>>
>> It's
> On 7 Apr 2021, at 15:51, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>
> Il 07/04/21 15:47, Konstantin Shegunov ha scritto:
>>It's for Qt 7, I'm afraid. We're bound to an API/ABI compatibility
>>promise. And not marking things _in code_ but only in docs isn't good
>>enough.
>> Didn'
On Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 15:18:10 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> Il 07/04/21 14:56, Sze Howe Koh ha scritto:
> > Is it acceptable to remove them during Qt 6's lifetime? Or should we
> > wait till Qt 7?
>
> It's for Qt 7, I'm afraid. We're bound to an API/ABI compatibility
> pro
Il 07/04/21 15:47, Konstantin Shegunov ha scritto:
It's for Qt 7, I'm afraid. We're bound to an API/ABI compatibility
promise. And not marking things _in code_ but only in docs isn't good
enough.
Didn't the powers that be decide that an ABI break is going to happen in
6.2? If so,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:20 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development <
development@qt-project.org> wrote:
> Il 07/04/21 14:56, Sze Howe Koh ha scritto:
> > Is it acceptable to remove them during Qt 6's lifetime? Or should we
> > wait till Qt 7?
>
> It's for Qt 7, I'm afraid. We're bound to an API/ABI
Il 07/04/21 14:56, Sze Howe Koh ha scritto:
Is it acceptable to remove them during Qt 6's lifetime? Or should we
wait till Qt 7?
It's for Qt 7, I'm afraid. We're bound to an API/ABI compatibility
promise. And not marking things _in code_ but only in docs isn't good
enough.
Thanks for notici
Some parts of the Qt API have been documented as obsolete for a long
time, but were not removed before Qt 6.0.0 was released.
For example, the following 2 pages contain exactly the same list:
* https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qmessagebox-obsolete.html
* https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qmessagebox-obsolete.html
QL
12 matches
Mail list logo
