My two cents, I also agree with option 2. PRs affecting the API brekage should be included. I guess the first round of QGIS3 won't be without issues. I tell my customers to wait at lear some minor release before moving to it! :)
giovanni Il 24 ott 2017 8:36 AM, "Richard Duivenvoorde" <[email protected]> ha scritto: > On 24-10-17 00:33, Nyall Dawson wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Just wanted to raise discussion about what we should do regarding the > > 100+ open PRs currently sitting in the request queue, especially with > > regards to the looming freeze. > > > > I can see two options: > > > > 1. freeze = freeze, no exceptions. But then we run the risk of people > > merging PRs and commits prematurely without full peer review just to > > get them in for 3.0 (it becomes a rush of "quick merge in whatever > > state because it's a cool feature!!). Or alternatively we may miss > > open PRs which are important (crucial?) to have in place for 3.0 (e.g. > > processing SAGA/GRASS providers, Nathan's settings migrations, etc). > > > > 2. Allow open PRs to be merged after freeze on a case-by-case basis, > > up to a suitable cut-off date (when?). > > Yep, my preference would be *2* too, > in combination with further cleanup. > > But I also think we need to start working on stability. I try to use > both version in daily testing/work, and QGIS3 is at this moment more > crashing to end a session, then being stopped by me :-( > So I think we really need to work/test before being able to release a > stable version.... > > Regards, > > Richard Duivenvoorde > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
