> So, I believe that in production environment the most stable (!= latest) version is used. For almost 2 years we used 1.7.4, for me the most stable QGIS version in earth (more than 2.4 and 2.6!).
Oh man. I couldn't even use 1.7.4 anymore it's so old ;) Anyway the point is a valid one. Running the latest != most stable. IMO we don't need "resources" to do bug fixing. The dev that does the bug fix in master can do it in the 2.x branch for that stable release if it is relevant.. This obviously has to be done smart but using the recent crash and project corruption as an example that Martin fixed right away, to me this warrants a new release off that branch, LTS or not, as project corruption is a really really bad look. - Nathan On Mon Nov 10 2014 at 7:43:27 PM Luca Manganelli <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[email protected]> > wrote: > > To me, the whole issue boils down to having resources to do > > serious backporting of fixes. Without that, LTS will have no practical > > effect, as users will use the latest, more bugfixed version. > > "more bugfixed" is not always true. We had issues with 1.8.0 and 2.2.0 > and we refused to use them in our organization due to critical bugs > that are fixed in newer version, but they have sometimes introduced > other. > > So, I believe that in production environment the most stable (!= > latest) version is used. For almost 2 years we used 1.7.4, for me the > most stable QGIS version in earth (more than 2.4 and 2.6!). > _______________________________________________ > 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
