On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Marco Hugentobler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > I'm voting for releasing in time as is. > We had that discussion prior to each release before. It turned out that > after shifting the release date, new must-fix bugs showed up and the release > was shifted over and over again. > With a fixed release schedule, it is no problem to wait for the next release > with bugfixes and features, because the next release comes within a few > months.
With QGIS permanently broken and always waiting for next release which will bring me new bugs. Radim > If releases are delayed, people cannot rely on a next release coming > after four months. > > Regards, > Marco > > > On 19.02.2014 11:33, Radim Blazek wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jürgen E. <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Radim, >>> >>> On Wed, 19. Feb 2014 at 09:14:43 +0100, Radim Blazek wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Jürgen E. <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What I wanted to say is that there are a bunch of tests that fail >>>>> because >>>>> they are not up to date or fail for other reasons that are not related >>>>> to >>>>> actual bugs in qgis itself. For example render tests, which fail >>>>> because of >>>>> fonts or other differences (eg. removed renderers). I think that are >>>>> the >>>>> majority of tests that currently fail. >>>> >>>> Platform dependent tests (fonts) don't make sense for me and should be >>>> disabled until get fixed (e.g. using font set shipped with QGIS). >>>> Renderer >>>> test should be updated and only real bugs will remain and those should >>>> be >>>> blockers, I think. >>> >>> Well, there are platform dependant bugs and therefore there also could be >>> platform dependant tests. But those would need to be clearly marked as >>> such >>> and only run on the corresponding platform. >>> >>> Do we need to discuss that failing tests - or any other bug - should be >>> fixed? >>> I doubt that we do. >>> >>> I'm just objecting to planing ahead too much >> >> Exactly, so why to insist exactly on release day planned 3 months ago? >> >>> - let's first fix the tests and then decide further steps. >> >> That won't work, we must be forced to fix them. >> >>>>> Another thing is that we don't have the concept of actual blockers >>>>> anymore. >>>>> We release every four months what we have at that point. Blockers are >>>>> just >>>>> highest priority for bugs. >>>> >>>> Blockers do not block stable release?! I don't think anything like that >>>> was >>>> ever explicitly said nor there is a general consensus about that. I read >>>> your >>>> release plan again and I only found: >>> >>> We just have releases. The plan is to release what we have on release >>> day. Of >>> course that should be in the best possible shape, but whatever we do it >>> will >>> have known und unknown bugs. >> >> Whatever we do it will have unknown bugs but does not have to have known >> bugs. >> >> I am strongly against releasing with known blockers. >> >> Radim >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > > -- > Dr. Marco Hugentobler > Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions > Weberstrasse 5, CH-8004 Zürich, Switzerland > [email protected] http://www.sourcepole.ch > Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee > > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
