Hi all On 12/21/2016 04:25 PM, Giovanni Manghi wrote: >> I personally have a strong, very strong urge to have a good alternative to >> these stupid, ugly shapefiles. We really need to make sure that Geopackage >> works well in QGIS/GDAL and FOSSGIS in general. Only then we can seriously >> suggest geopackage as a Shapefile replacement. > > > agree, a lot.
Yes, please! >> BTW: I also think that regressions in a LT bug fix release are really >> undesired. We received quite a lot of funding recently to QGIS.ORG and I >> think we should spend some of these on fixing the LT regression issues. > > > I think that lately the very bad thing is that regression in between > point releases of LTR started to surface. I am not sure if there are really more regressions or if these just are spotted more often because LTR are gaining more visibility and hence testing (which is a good sign). Maintenance of LTR right now depends on 1) organisations requesting bugfixes on existing contracts 2) backporting of bugs fixed in pre-release bugfixing of regular releases I would very much appreciate if we were able to put more resources in the long term maintenance of these releases. > I strongly suggest that the paid bug fixing effort should be targeted > to 1) regressions 2) issues that we know cause crash or data > corruption in a replicable manner. Isn't that the case already? I always look at blocker priority issues first which are assigned based on these criteria I think. And while on the topic, IMHO crashes are in many cases even worse than regressions. Matthias _______________________________________________ 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
