I think that LTS is kind of a really good idea.
At some extent, it's what Sourcepole is doing with its QGIS enterprise.
If we have enough companies paying for such bugfixes & QA, that would be
easily feasible, but someone should be in charge of handling this.
Then, the cycle is another discussion. It could be either 2 or 3
releases a year, with 1 over 2 or 3 being LTS.
But I would definitely investigate the idea of the LTS.
Greetings,
Denis
On 19.06.2014 12:44, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
Good to hear that there are organizations putting money into QA. Thanks
a lot.
I think there are different categories of users, experimental early
adopters and organizations going for stability at the expense of
waiting longer for new features.
To get the best for both, LTS releases may be a good option. One LTS
branch every 8 or 12 months which gets fixes backported and 1 or 2
other releases in between which work the way we currently have it.
Advantages are
New features get tested in the in-between releases (they will get used
because they are not called experimental or testing or rc).
Big organizations use the same LTS release (in comparison to the
general advice of "take every second release" which will bring one org
to use the Jun release and the other one the Feb release) and can
collaborate with bugfixing
Backports of bugfixes have always to be done for one specific/defined
version. (In comparison: if a company skips release 2.6 they are still
with 2.4 in the 2.7 period, and nobody will backport to 2.4 at that
stage)
Best,
Matthias
On Don 19 Jun 2014 12:33:01 CEST, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
Il 19/06/2014 12:19, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
I'd like to add to the discussion that there will be more organizations
investing in bug-fixing in the future. Yesterday, a Swiss canton told me
that they will invest 5000 CHF each year in QA/bugfixing in the future.
I am pretty sure that more organizations will follow.
Wonderful, this is the way to go IMHO.
But it is important that we will provide bug-fix releases and that there
is a reasonable time available for testing. The short releases do not
help at all for organizations - because each new release introduces more
and different bugs.
The above mentioned resources could be used for maintaining a stable branch, and
backporting.
We users need bug-free software more than a predictable release date. We
don't need QGIS at an exact specific time. But we cannot accept that
some features are broken that are key to our work.
Agreed fully: that's what Blocker category is for.
All the best, and thanks for this important discussion.
_______________________________________________
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
