[Qt-creator] Planning Qt Creator 2.8 + 0.1

[Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos]

On 20/06/2013 16:35, Ziller Eike wrote:
>
> On 20.06.2013, at 16:05, Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos <nicolas.arnaud-cormos at kdab.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi André,
>>
>> Thanks for the overview, I'm quite happy seeing Qt Creator taking this
>> direction.
>>
>> On 13/06/2013 16:06, Poenitz Andre wrote:
>>> 2. 2.8 + 0.1 makes 3.0, as we use base-9 for version numbers ;-). More
>>> seriously, we'd like to make the point that with Android and iOS support we
>>> have a new "phase". At the same time we'd like to stiffen the rules on core
>>> compatibility to make it easier for 3rdparty plugin developers to keep their
>>> plugins working. Current thinking is to aim at source and binary compatibility
>>> within a minor series (i.e. 3.0 and 3.0.1 could be interchanged, but not, say,
>>> 3.0 and 3.1).
>>
>>> 5. "committed" maintenance: In preparation of the potential compatibility
>>> promises the core interfaces need some auditing, and possibly re-shuffling
>>> and "real" documentation. In addition there should be general performance
>>> audit/profiling including fixing the most glaring issues that will come up.
>>
>> The current policy when it comes to plugin API (correct me if I'm wrong)
>> is: "make everything private except if it's needed".
>> Does that mean that it will change slightly to have useful methods
>> public, even if not used?
>
> No, that policy doesn't change.
> The policy that changes a bit is the one that currently says "even public API can change at any time".
> Actually, when public API now has to abide to some rules regarding when it can be changed, I'd say it is even more important that we don't "wildly" make API public that might be useful for someone or not ;)
>
>> To give you an example, the switchHeaderSource is private, but it could
>> very be used by 3rd party plugin.
>
> These can always be discussed and decided on individual basis of course, even without any policy change, probably with a comment in the code, so it doesn't get accidentally removed. The argumentation still should be that *someone* *actually* uses that / wants to use that the moment it is exposed.

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

Nicolas

-- 
Join us in October at Qt Developer Days 2013! - https://devdays.kdab.com

Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos | nicolas.arnaud-cormos at kdab.com | Senior Software 
Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-independent software solutions