Hi, 2017-02-22 0:38 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Neto <[email protected]>:
> According to the latest news, it seems that there will make sense to have > a 2.18 Documentation release... > > Sorry for trying to "rush" it to 3.0. Or will it be 3.2? > > Anyway, I am going to put some effort in fixing 2.x issues in the user's > manual. > > Like reviewing some of the pending pull requests? :) Thanks H. > A qui, 9/02/2017, 09:39, DelazJ <[email protected]> escreveu: > >> 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 >> >> >> -- > Alexandre Neto > --------------------- > @AlexNetoGeo > http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com > http://gisunchained.wordpress.com >
_______________________________________________ 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
