[Development] Proposal to retain \since version information in Qt Documentation

[Jaroslaw Kobus]

> History and easy access to historical data /is/ important to some people, insofar
> at least the commit message in the changes is wrong.
> 
> Andre'

The \since info, even when informing about something that got introduced 20 years ago,
isn't a noise IMO, definitely. It's hard to see that it would annoy anyone.
It's short and doesn't clutter the generated docs.

> 
> PS:
> 
> > > I welcome further discussion on this matter and would appreciate hearing other
> > > perspectives. Thank you for considering this proposal.
> > >
> > > Personal note:
> > > I must admit that I was hesitant to bring this matter to the mailing list, as it
> > > feels somewhat like an escalation. However, the interest and contrasting
> > > opinions expressed by multiple reviewers on these patches indicate that it would
> > > be beneficial to have a project-wide discussion. While this issue may not seem
> > > critically important in isolation, I believe it holds meaningful implications for our
> > > documentation practices and, more broadly, for how we make decisions that impact
> > > the developer community.
> > >
> > > I also feel that it's not my responsibility to block these changes based on
> > > personal reservations. Given that there are strong opinions on both sides, it
> > > seems appropriate for us as a community to reach a consensus. A collective
> > > decision would ensure that our actions reflect the values and needs of the
> > > entire Qt project. [...]

As Andre' already mentioned (see below) - thank you Paul for your personal note (see above).

>From my side: special respect for the beautiful choice of words,
thanks to which no reviewer or author of the mentioned changes could feel uncomfortable.
 
> I think I understand the concern as I often enough was (or am) thinking about this
> approach (on different matters, like e.g. "deprecations" and "nice to have but source
> breaking changes")

or e.g.: "passing trivial types by value in the new API, while all the other existing API pass them via const &".

Side note: I guess there are more different topics which deserve broader attention.
Their source usually comes from specific patches.
It's very useful for the discussed topic to mention the patches that started the discussion about the topic
(e.g. not to repeat arguments that have already been said).
But it's true that some people may mistakenly perceive this as an escalation,
so I think that's material for a separate thread.

Jarek

> and most of the time just chickened out and sent nothing at all or
> just a semi-private mail to a handful people in the end, but I think "we" should do
> that more often, with a low threshold -- insofar "Thank you for (++c)aring"