[Development] Qt 5.5.0 header diff

[Heikkinen Jani]

Hi,

I tried to create error reports about the findings to be able to follow-up the progress. Please create new one if something is missing. I have also linked all to the Qt5.5.0-RC blocker list so please try to close all as soon as possible. I'll ask LEs from responsible persons today to be able to estimate RC schedule

Here is the errors I created:

 QTBUG-46555 not Qt-like API in QtGUI 
 QTBUG-46556 Retroactive deprecations are not allowed. 
 QTBUG-46557 QtTest.diff : API isn't finished 
 QTBUG-46558 Some methods in wrong class 
 QTBUG-46559 Q_DECL_OVERRIDEs missing from QtQuickWidgets API 
 QTBUG-46560 QtQML: Rename qqmfile.h into qqmlfile_p.h. 
 QTBUG-46561 Header Diff related issues in QtCore 
 QTBUG-46562 Header diff issues in QtLocation 
 QTBUG-46563 Header diff issues in QtMultimedia
 QTBUG-46564 Header diff issues in QtBluetooth 

br,
Jani


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=theqtcompany.com at qt-
>>project.org [mailto:development-
>>bounces+jani.heikkinen=theqtcompany.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
>>Oswald Buddenhagen
>>Sent: 9. kesäkuuta 2015 12:49
>>To: development at qt-project.org
>>Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.5.0 header diff
>>
>>On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:35:45AM +0000, Knoll Lars wrote:
>>> On 08/06/15 23:58, "development-
>>bounces+lars.knoll=theqtcompany.com at qt-project.org on behalf of Thiago
>>Macieira" <development-bounces+lars.knoll=theqtcompany.com at qt-
>>project.org on behalf of thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Monday 08 June 2015 22:31:15 Marc Mutz wrote:
>>> >> It would probably be a good idea to do an additional header diff (incl. new
>>> >> headers) on the ML after the alpha. I don't follow the development of
>>> >> modules other than QtBase closely, nor do I want to, and apparently I'm
>>too
>>> >> strict a reviewer to be regularly invited on new API
>>>
>>> Agree. Let's put this into our planning for 5.6. One header diff/review at the
>>time we branch 5.6, and a final one to cross-check before the RC.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Well, that's exactly the kind of people we want reviewing our APIs...
>>>
>>> Thiago's right. If there's one place we want to be very strict it's on our APIs.
>>Everything else we can still fix later on, but APIs are out there and will stick for a
>>long time, so we better get them right.
>>>
>>wouldn't that mean pulling the emergency brake on 5.5 and allowing a
>>further ~two week slip in the schedule to actually fix the problem now
>>that we are aware of it? i think we already have enough experience with
>>how well "next time" works in practice ...
>>_______________________________________________
>>Development mailing list
>>Development at qt-project.org
>>http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development