Hi Mathias, I am aware that there's no longer two master branches for QGIS. If I recall, this approach was used while there was some indefinition about the next releases. And master_2 was put to sleep as soon as possible, because it was a burden to maintain.
For that reason I would prefer branching 2.18 documentation with backport fixes. But I think there might be some implications with the transitions. Anyway, I would just like to have a way to contribute to QGIS 3.0 documentation. A sex, 3/03/2017, 17:21, Matthias Kuhn <[email protected]> escreveu: > Hi Alexandre > > On 03/03/2017 05:46 PM, Alexandre Neto wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Sorry to come back to this thread. But, although it seems that we will > > have a 2.18 documentation release, we are still blocking the > > documentation of new features arriving to the QGIS 3.0 Branch. And there > > are tons of it. > > > > So, could we adopt some strategy about this? Maybe two master branches > > There is only one master branch at the moment (master_2 was sent to the > happy hunting grounds a couple of months ago). > > So if the decision is to work on two branches in parallel, better work > on release-2_18 and master. > > If you have an eye on the qgis/release-2_18 branch and compare it to the > commits on documentation/master, I think backporting might indeed be > worth a try. > > But remember, that I've got no idea about your workflows ;) > > Matthias > > > if necessary (as done for QGIS code). Or branch 2.18 documentation, work > > normally in master and backport all functionalities that were missing? > > > > Any opinions or ideas? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Alexandre Neto <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > escreveu no dia quarta, 22/02/2017 às 12:50: > > > > I can try. Although I don't have your eye for details. :-) > > > > > > A qua, 22/02/2017, 12:01, DelazJ <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> escreveu: > > > > Hi, > > > > 2017-02-22 0:38 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Neto <[email protected] > > <mailto:[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] > > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 > > > > -- > > Alexandre Neto > > --------------------- > > @AlexNetoGeo > > http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com > > http://gisunchained.wordpress.com > > > > -- > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- 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
