News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Is Semantic Versioning an Anti-Pattern?. Parent comment

Re:Is Semantic Versioning an Anti-Pattern? by slavik81 on Thursday January 12, 2017 @01:48AM (#13380287)
Qt uses it extensively. For big, complex objects like QTextEdit it's probably the least of your concerns, but they do avoid it for simple value types like QPoint.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Semantic Versioning an Anti-Pattern? by flukus on Thursday January 12, 2017 @02:08AM (#13380387)
A good chunk of these questions I'm asking are because I half remember Qt's binary compatibility guidelines from when I did an internship at Trolltech many years ago :) A similar list is here: https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issu... . It looks like the virtual function restrictions are what I was talking about, that's where pure additions can break compatibility.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Semantic Versioning an Anti-Pattern? by slavik81 on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:56AM (#13380838)
If you worked at Trolltech, you almost certainly know more than me. I was just a user of Qt who peeked under the covers occasionally.
[ Parent | on HN ]