Thanks Andreas to raise the issue again. I feel stressed too with that release cycle as a public enterprise manager.
Why ? - We try to push new features and fund them. It requires to test them when they land in master and restest them in all versions for regressions in LTR. - We have a delay between production deployment and LTR, depending on other schedules than mine. so I currently have to support 2.6.1 in production, test master during feature freeze, restest in 2.8, 2.10, in case I have to switch back to LTR for next deployment. - If I keep to LTR, QGIS will loose early tester.. that's already the case. I can't follow three feature freeze periods in a year. Not sure not testing only LTR versions helps QGIS project, since QGIS looses enterprise heavy use cases here. The feature freeze and early patched version appears all the time as Andreas said. - It is more pertinent and effective to test when developers are on the work.. Six month later, tickets are kept in a pile. more overhead for everyone. - tickets are closed even before good testing, I need to reopen some often. Risk of releasing a non tested patch. - Big features are introduced without QEP's written. Sorry for saying that, I launch a funding for labeling rewrite and I see an API rewrite land in Master, no blog, no doc, no QEP. The work is very good, but I can't rely on such a roadmap with contracts relying on a blackbox project. This ends up in more costs, because there is risk. We already have high costs with review, quality, community work overhead. This ends to more overhead, which leads to fewer time to test. Unless... I could hire someone. And this is impossible here. More than all this, QGIS project is not able to review all the pending PR's. I funded two features that won't make it in 2.12 because there wasn't enought time for this. Postponing to 2.14 means rewriting a lot of code because it won't be mergeable easily. So.. I gain a lot of administrative work on my side, and funded developpers gain a lot of risks on this. This is costy because we have to switch between to much versions at a time and get lost in it. I also feel developpers being a bit too much "on the edge" by now. In my feeling, the 4 months release is more damageable than a 6 month because of that "urge" feeling. Please don't say user enterprise can jump over non LTR version, you know we finance a lot, and if we don't stick to current project, we all loose something. I think we must slow down, accept to postpone some new features, which is hard to do and explain to funders. We need to all use QEP's, and that take time to explain what is being done. I would love to be able to talk of all this with you in any developper meeting, but budgets cuts just don't allow me to move from here. Régis -- View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Release-schedule-discussion-again-tp5229448p5229488.html Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
