Hi,
That is, what I was trying to find out: are we aiming for a "soft
feature freeze" as Tim described it - meaning that every new feature or
major API change that is merged now, needs approval from some core devs
- or are we still allowing any new feature to land in QGIS 3?
In any case - I fear that the bug fixing time is getting too short now,
if we aim at a december release.
@Matthieu: as I said, my crashes are often happening with forms,
relations and PostgreSQL transaction mode. Just recently, QGIS crashed
every time I used the Identify tool - really scary! Matthias fixed that
particular problem (related to relation reference widgets) meanwhile -
but there are more such crashes ...
Even more scary: QGIS is marking features as if they were manipulated /
edited (displayed as red in the side bar in the forms mode) although I
did not enter edit mode. Really scary and not trustworthy!
Definitely QGIS 3 is nowhere near to being production ready if you need
to rely on it as a PostgreSQL editing platform with lots of relations
and complex forms and widgets.
Andreas
On 2017-11-06 13:58, Mathieu Pellerin wrote:
> I still think it's worth considering feature freeze exceptions ( versus a
> feature freeze delay ). It'd be a shame for this debate/discussion not to
> take place.
>
> As for stability, I've had a rather positive experience with current master
> builds in terms of stability. Hope you can dissect the issues that are
> haunting you in time :)
>
> Math
>
> On Nov 6, 2017 7:53 PM, "Andreas Neumann" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well - in my opinion, if we delay the feature freeze we also have to delay
> the release.
>
> QGIS 3 still crashes several times a day (esp. if you work with editing,
> complex forms and PostgreSQL transaction mode). QGIS 3 is way more unstable
> than QGIS 2.18. We need at least 1.5 months, better 2 months between feature
> freeze and release. If we move feature freeze, say, until end of November, we
> can't release in December or we would loose the good reputation that QGIS
> built in the last couple of years.
>
> That is just my personal opinion. I use QGIS 3 a lot - and it is not a
> pleasant piece of software currently, but a major source of headaches and
> grief, not because of UI or missing features, but because of all the crashes
> I often experience (and are often hard to reproduce and report).
>
> Andreas
>
> On 2017-11-06 13:17, Mathieu Pellerin wrote:
> Hmm we just jumped from discussing feature freeze exception to delaying
> release, is that correct?
>
> Personally, I'm big +1 for feature freeze exceptions-only *if* release date
> remains achievable. If not, it seems there is a consensus on adding
> additional time to this dev cycle, which remains preferable to shipping 3.0
> with crucial architectural changes and additions missing.
>
> That said I'm a -1 to go into a "release whenever it's ready" mode without a
> firm agreed upon (delayed) release date.
>
> M
>
> On Nov 6, 2017 6:59 PM, "Andreas Neumann" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It would be nice if the core devs could agree on items that need to go into
> 3.0 before feature freeze - so we don't have to delay longer than necessary.
>
> The other question is how to deal with features that could also be done in
> 3.2. Can they also go into 3.0 if they are ready before the feature freeze?
> In other words: do we already have a feature freeze but allow exceptions
> where core devs agree on? Or will the whole feature freeze be delayed?
>
> Andreas
>
> On 2017-11-06 12:23, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>
> Hi Jürgen,
> On 11/06/2017 11:17 AM, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Mon, 06. Nov 2017 at 11:00:04 +0100, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>
> Instead I would like the PSC to discuss a flexible handling of this
> particular major release with the very specific requirements.
>
> The "release when ready" policy was made for 3.0 and only for 3.0. The plan
> is
> to return to the original way of doing release afterwards.
>
> That would have been my preference anyway and returning to it is ok with me.
Nice, looks like everyone agrees.
Can we schedule a release-plan meeting with involved devs to discuss
if/when it's ready?
Thanks a lot
Matthias
> Although IIRC the move to a fixed date was made because others argued that
> they
> need to communicate a date to their customers.
>
> Jürgen
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> [email protected]
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1]
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[email protected]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1]
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[email protected]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1]
Links:
------
[1] 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
