> A technology demonstration or demonstrator model, informally known as a tech demo, is a prototype, rough example or an otherwise incomplete version of a conceivable product or future system, put together as proof of concept with the primary purpose of showcasing the possible applications, feasibility, performance and method of an idea for a new technology.

Verdigris has been developed and maintained now for over 4 years. Not only does it work - it has unit tests, CI and issues are addressed by the maintainers.

While verdigris does demonstrate that something is technically possible, so does Apache httpd - does not make Apache httpd a tech demo.

So anything that starts out as a tech demo should forever be called a tech demo?

> It is relatively low maintenance given that Qt maintain binary compatibility anyway (Qt 6 will be another story).

It is a header only library ... not sure what binary compatibility has to do with it ...

> not sure what binary compatibility has to do with it ...

Because the meta object generated by the verdigris macro will continue to work with newer version of Qt. But in Qt6, the binary format will change so some adaptations will be required.

And the only reason I discussed that is because earlier in this thread someone claimed "The project is part tech demo for fun, part shut up the people who complain about moc."

> Because the meta object generated by the verdigris macro will continue to work with newer version of Qt. But in Qt6, the binary format will change so some adaptations will be required.

If it Qt6 retains backwards source code compatibility then verdigris should still keep working I guess. If not then yes verdigris will need to change but in neither of these cases do I see binary compatibility as being relevant - if you compiled something for Qt5 and the binary compatibility breaks to Qt6 then this will affect you regardless of having used verdigris or not no?