[Interest] QtSVG deprecated

André Pönitz andre.poenitz at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de
Thu Jan 12 23:04:20 CET 2012


On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:34:45PM -0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 de January de 2012 15.34.34, Alex Malyushytskyy
> wrote:
> > > No you don't. You have something which tries to implement Svg
> > > Tiny, but apparently is not complete or bug-free.
> > 
> > I believe you are wrong.  Check discussion above and there was a
> > statement that it is considered "Complete"
> > 
> > My over 20 years experience shows that there is no bug free
> > software, there are bugs that either have not being found yet or
> > just ignored.
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> The adjective "complete" was used when we were talking about APIs
> that had reached the intended feature level support and we did not
> plan on extending them further. That's what the "Done" state in the
> maturity level means. Some people suggested that QtSvg might be in
> that, and we compared to QtXmlPatterns and QtXml (DOM classes).
> 
> QtSvg is by no mean complete or done. It's definitely incomplete
> and we know it. That's one of the reasons why it became Deprecated
> instead of Done.

This whole "Deprecated" and "Done" talk does honestly not make
much sense to me.

Calling something "Deprecated" just because it is missing
features and there is nobody actively working on it is
simply wrong.

It also sends the message "I'd like to get rid of it, rather
sooner than later, and any minute someone spends on it is
likely to be wasted".

"Useful, but incomplete" essentially describes the same state
but sends a completely different message.

Andre'

PS: If you don't agree then you'd better call rcc "deprecated",
too. Missing features, no active maintenance. Meets your 
definition, doesn't it?




More information about the Interest mailing list