Hi, Alexandre, Thanks for the clarification. Indeed we need to hear people once for all on this (these) topic(s) and ensure any contribution is not rejected or discouraged. And I think making PR guarantee that a contribution is taken into account (we still have a queue shorter than QGIS repo's :) )
Richard, I think it's more than clear that the next application release is 3.0 and the 2.x serie is behind us now. It's also clear that after 2.14, the next LTR will be 3.2. Btw, we need to update a bit http://qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/development/roadmap.html#release-schedule The 2.x vs 3.0 issue reports separation in Doc repo was at that time due to the hypothetic release of a QGIS 2.20 which would be a LTR hence would deserve a documentation (due to the rule "only LTRs are documented"). Now there will be no 2.20 and the next LTR is two releases away so, as Richard said "the main question is: do we decide to NOT release a newer documentation(!) 2.x branch anymore this year.?" In other words: Do we keep 2.x series documentation at 2.14 level, while there are 2.16 and 2.18 releases that would surely be used for a while? That's all! And I'm fine with whatever (argumented) answer is made! if the answer is a categoric No :), let's pull 3.0 fixes If the answer is "Yes, we want to release a 2.18 documentation" (without translation of course), we can still begin working on 3.0 issues by creating a master_2 branch for 2.18 fixes and port fixes from a branch to another. It has been made with QGIS repo. I'm sure it 'd not be that hard to maintain. It's not like if we have codes, it's all about text (more understandable and cherry-pickable for me, anyway). Btw, given that we are in dev list, allow me to remind that in the thread in psc-list, there was a call for devs to help maintain and reinforce the backend of documentation.... you are welcome... Thanks Regards, Harrissou 2017-02-09 8:36 GMT+01:00 Richard Duivenvoorde <[email protected]>: > On 08-02-17 12:42, Alexandre Neto wrote: > > My concerns are about this part: > > > > /"Then, afaict, a part of this commit is more about QGIS 3 changes and I > > am not sure we are currently documenting QGIS3 stuffs (still waiting for > > comments and decision in this thread > > <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2017-January/005060.html>)." > > > > / > > So, with my email, I just wanted to go back to the discussion of what > > versions we are planning/want to release and have a decision. Also, make > > sure that whatever the decision on that, we have a solution that does > > not put a developer's (or anyone else) PR on hold (not merged) if they > > want to contribute documentation for the current is master version. > > Mainly because people's availability and motivation can be affected by > that. > > Hi Alexandre, > > the main reason holding back 3.0 descriptions from master is to be able > to release a (nowadays pretty theoretical?) new LTR in 2.x branch. > > This in case that waiting for a stable 3.x (plus a reasonable set of > working python plugins!) would take too long, and the community would > decide or ask for another 2.x release to be able to do their daily work > with QGIS. > > IF we are more or less sure that there will NO MORE 2.x QGIS (LTR's?) > anymore, we can decide to lift this clear 2.x - 3.x separation (thanks > Harrissou for defending this :-) ). > > So the main question is: do we decide to NOT release a newer > documentation(!) 2.x branch anymore this year. > > Regards, > > Richard >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
