[Development] Qt 5.5.0 header diff

Knoll Lars Lars.Knoll at theqtcompany.com
Tue Jun 9 22:03:55 CEST 2015

On 09/06/15 16:41, "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 Tuesday 09 June 2015 07:35:45 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.
>I don't think this is a header diff review.
>This is an API review, where we have people who've written new classes to come 
>and present their API. They should do that in fact even as the feature is 
>being finalised and is getting integrated.
>We can initiate it by doing a dump of new classes in the release. That should 
>be easy, all we need is to compare include/QtXxxx/ file listing.
>We'd still need a header diff for new functions in existing classes. Usually, 
>those are minor additions.

Sorry, maybe bad wording from my side. But with a header diff I meant a full diff that would include also new files/classes.


More information about the Development mailing list