Hi, On 19/01/2016 11:08, Paolo Cavallini wrote: > Il 19/01/2016 10:38, Richard Duivenvoorde ha scritto: >> On 17-01-16 23:03, Tim Sutton wrote: >>> [1] http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/ >> >> Dev's, >> >> Nobody else? > > My suggestion: > * release 2.14 LTR > * move immediately to 3.0 > * backport all fixes to 2.14, as usual for LTR > * allow for exception for new functions, on a case by case basis, if > these are especially important, of limited impact, and needed soon, well > before the expected release of 3.0 (I know this is against the LTR > concept, that's why I think it should be exceptional)
So a 2.14.x with possibly new features ... why not. I am also in favor of the approach number 1: focus on the 3.0 rather than "release when it's ready". I think I would prefer to have another version in the 2.x branch (2.16) to let people propose the features they are working on (even if I admit the 3.0 version has been proposed as the next version since months) Just an idea: what about a 2.16 being an LTR rather than the 2.14 ? The blog post says for the approach 1 the main risk is a lack of funding. Do we have some ideas of the amount of work needed ? _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
