[Development] QML import versions

[Nurmi J-P]

> On 18 Sep 2015, at 17:33, Robin Burchell <robin+qt at viroteck.net> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Nurmi J-P wrote:
>> - QtQml 2.2
>> - QtQml.Models 2.3 (++)
>> - QtQuick 2.6 (++)
>> - QtQuick.Particles 2.0
>> - QtQuick.Controls 1.5 (++)
>> - QtQuick.Layouts 1.3 (++)
>> - QtQuick.Dialogs 1.2
> 
> You missed QtQuick.Window I think :)
> 
> ... which brings me to this:
> 
>> Is this something that would be possible to implement already in Qt 5, or
>> is this Qt 6 material? Does someone strongly oppose the idea?
> 
> I have some opposition to the idea because it entirely prevents us from
> making changes if they are needed. An example of this came up just the
> other day on IRC: Window{} has a number of major (or at least quite
> irritating) flaws. A few of us were discussing whether/how it would be
> possible to fix them in a QtQuick.Window 3.0, without breaking backwards
> compatibility with older code, and without waiting for Qt 6.

I think it’s a reasonable trade-off. Qt has lived with this restriction for quite long. :)

If this is about the Item-based Window, would it make sense to give a different name? Panel? Popup? There’s also something related in the works in Qt Quick Controls 2.

>> How often do we release new major versions of QML modules? I don't see why QML
>> modules couldn't follow the same practices than the rest of Qt follows.
> 
> At present, we don't, but I think that's more down to the low amount of
> activity happening outside the engine (at present) rather than the lack
> of a _need_ to in some areas. Adopting this policy would mean there is
> zero chance of these ever happening outside of major Qt releases, which
> ties things to a much longer timeframe than "whenever we feel like
> bumping the major version number".
> 
> To me, that feels like a pretty big loss, even if I can see the appeal
> we get in having consistency.

Yeah, it’s a big limitation, but I’d vote for consistency for the sake of pleasant Qt Quick experience. It would also mean that we wouldn’t be able to release Qt Quick Controls 2.0 as is. We could release some parts of it under a different import, though.

The QML version mess has been bothering me for a long time, and as I tried to illustrate in the initial email, it keeps getting worse every Qt release… :(

> It also means we're bumping version
> numbers for the sake of bumping version numbers in cases where there
> really aren't any (or at least many) changes, in the case of e.g.
> Particles, which is less of an issue, but still an issue.

Is it any different to bumping the version of, say, QtXmlPatterns?

--
J-P Nurmi