[Development] Are SiCs through #include cleanups considered acceptable?

[Harri Porten]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Marc Mutz wrote:

> I have in the past fixed #include mistakes such as #include <qsharedpointer.h>
> for QSharedDataPointer, and even though each time the issue came up that this
> is a SiC change (but only for users that unduly rely on indirect includes), so
> far they were always accepted.
>
> When splitting off qHash() from qhash.h into qhashfunctions.h, I have come
> across many files that included qhash.h without using it, and likewise some
> for which qhashfunctions.h would suffice. One of them now got a -1 for being
> SiC.
>
> Can we please decide once and for all whether #include cleanups that are
> technically SiC are ok or not, if they only affect users that rely on indirect
> includes?
>
> My vote obviously goes to allowing them.

I vote for marking the cleanup as a TODO for Qt 6.

Non-perfect includes a minor hassle compared to the unpleasent surprises 
of those upgrading.

Speaking of which: a script binding generator tool I used on Qt 5.5 
chocked on the "internal" QStringList changes. Aren't those Qt 6 
candidates, too?

Harri.