Anita, Thanks for pointing out QEP#4, I wasn't aware of it. Tim has done an impressive work there.
The above-mentioned QEP is a long term thing, what I was suggesting is a very short term (i.e. 2 cycles) proposal to try and satisfy the current needs for stability and devlopment momentum. I also am familiar with the discussion surrounding the 4 month cycle dates having been carefully chosen, hence why I was thinking that redistributing weeks within the context of two cycles wouldn't break that on the long term (i.e., by the end of the proposed two cycles, we're still 8 months from now, etc.) Math On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Anita Graser <anitagra...@gmx.at> wrote: > Are you aware of QEP3? Please read Tim's suggestion. There are good > reasons for this stable 4 month cycle at exactly the current release times > of the year. > > Best wishes > Anita > On Nov 10, 2014 5:57 AM, "Geo DrinX" <geodr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes yes yes. >> >> +1 >> >> but also +999 :) >> >> >> Roberto >> >> 2014-11-10 2:27 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Pellerin <nirvn.a...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Guys, >>> >>> The recent thread Nyall kick-started with his “QGIS 3.0?” email got me >>> to think about the eternal stability vs. development dilemma it >>> (re-)exposed through the conversation. >>> >>> More specifically, it got me to brainstorm on the best way forward for >>> QGIS at this juncture and whether there's a way to accommodate both the >>> folks calling for a 2.8 LTS version, and others in need for space to >>> further develop and expand QGIS' capability. >>> >>> And, I might just have found a way to do so. Here's the proposal, in a >>> couple of points: >>> >>> - We make the 2.8 development cycle “fix and refinement”-only, and >>> reduce the cycle's length to 6 to 8 weeks; >>> - The reduced cycle will help everyone's focus on the above goal; >>> - We append the freed 8-10 weeks to the subsequent development cycle, >>> which would become QGIS 3.0; >>> - The expanded cycle will help give space to develop some of the >>> exciting features being cooked by developers (Nyall's Layouts, Marco's >>> Geometry redesign, etc.) and bulletproof those. >>> >>> This, IMHO, caters to both groups demanding stability and space for >>> development. It doesn't discourage or delay too much the grand scheme >>> changes, and pushes out a 2.8 version focused on stability through a >>> shorter cycle focusing on delivering a perfected tool. >>> >>> The above proposal does require a momentary lapse of the nice 4-month >>> release cycle rhythm which the QGIS has successfully maintained for three >>> releases now. But, it might actually be what's needed at this very time. >>> Plus, the length of the two cycles stays the same, 8 months. >>> >>> Comments? I'm obviously particularly interested in what Jürgen has to >>> say :) >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Math >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Qgis-developer mailing list >>> Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-developer mailing list >> Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer