Difficulty in detecting changes to the QRMI API due to versioning practices, complicating tasks like compatibility detection and API stability claims.
Difficulty in detecting changes to the QRMI API due to versioning practices, complicating tasks like compatibility detection and API stability claims.
Problem statement normalized from the linked evidence
CANDIDATE VIEW · NOT A PUBLISHED OPPORTUNITY
01
Qualification checklist
Gate decision: Aug 15, 2026
×
At least 3 independent users2 / 3
NOT MET
×
At least 2 independent discussions1 / 2
NOT MET
✓
At least 1 supporting signal1 Blocked workflows
MET
02
Observed signals
Users2
Discussions1
Mentions2
Active days1
Source coverageGitHub
TrendUNKNOWN
First seenJul 22, 2026
Last seenJul 22, 2026
Why the gate is holding
Fewer than 3 independent users
Fewer than 2 independent discussions
Competition research, commercial scoring, and Build Gap analysis do not run until this gate passes.
03
Source evidence
2 evidence records
github · MEDIUM · Jul 22, 2026
qiskit-community/qrmi
> The problem is that we cannot easily detect changes to the QRMI API because we are bumping the QRMI version also when we change implementation and internal code. Without precising what is the current API version, several tasks become more complicated e.g. detect compatibility issues, claim API stability, or discuss issues/features of a specific API version. If you want to solve the problem mentioned above, I think it would be simple enough to just add the function below. Splitting into crates is a different topic…
> Thanks for opening the issue. You're welcome. > I wasn't quite able to understand what you're trying to achieve by creating separate crates, or what the benefits of this approach are. Let me try to elaborate on the main discussion points. The rust docs we generate provide a nice documentation of all QRMI public items that are accessible to external Rust users. Currently, that includes QRMI implementations for vendors, traits and models (structs and enums). Since it contains only public items, I think we can say t…