On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Paolo Cavallini <[email protected]> wrote:
> From another standpoint, we still have 102 Q3 regressions: > https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?query_id=27 > From a quick scroll, I suspect at least some of them are not > particularly relevant, but a thorough analysis is needed. Yeah, a quick flick through revealed a very mixed lot -- many sound familiar and likely have already been fixed, some I know are still outstanding, and many waiting feedback for too long and should be just closed. I guess my question is (if we do delay the 2.x EOL as a result of these) is how many regressions are "acceptable" before EOL? We'll never get this to 0 -- there's been too many "by design" changes to make a zero regression target feasible (See obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1172/). > I'm not sure whether it will be acceptable for our users to release an > LTR with these regression, but this could be a way of putting pressure > on donors to help us fix them. Big +1 to this. If I'm being blunt, I think if a bug is a blocker to an organisation moving to 3.4, it's ultimately going to sit with them to get it fixed (or to sponsor QGIS and support the funded bug hunts). (Or, perhaps, in the case of regressions in features an organisation originally funded -- it's their responsibility to put pressure on the original developer they paid for the feature to fix it and protect it with suitable unit tests -- but that's between them and their original developer). Nyall > A big +1 for the blog post. > All the best. > -- > Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu > QGIS.ORG Chair: > http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/ _______________________________________________ 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
