[Development] QML engine C++ class renaming

Olivier Goffart olivier at woboq.com
Thu Feb 16 14:50:32 CET 2012

On Thursday 16 February 2012 13:39:14 lars.knoll at nokia.com wrote:
> On 2/16/12 2:11 PM, "ext Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
> wrote:
> >On quinta-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2012 13.51.27, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> > If that guarantee cannot be given, I will oppose the inclusion of
> >>
> >>QtQuick1
> >>
> >> > as part of the Qt 5.0 release.
> >> 
> >> That said, even if it doesn't get released with Qt 5.0, it could be
> >> released  later in the future if those people who want to use it band
> >> together and make it work (with 5.0 or 5.x or both).
> >
> >Or not at all. If a group of people does not show up to maintain it, then
> >it's
> >possible that it never gets released. I think that's preferable than to
> >give
> >the false impression to our users that they can rely on this feature.
> Well, it's working for the moment, so the question is where the person
> comes from that is willing to keep it alive. Since we'll keep BC after
> 5.0, the work would mainly be to adjust to changes in private headers and
> internals.

So if one wants to change the private header in qtbase while implementing a 
new feate, who is responsible to port QtQuick1? The one making the change, or 
the QtQuick1 maintainers?

Because if it is the one making the change, then it becomes a burden for the 
developers in qtbase.

More information about the Development mailing list