Hi, After QGIS 2.18 reaches EOL are there any plans to keep it available in a repository or via flatpak/snap app? I have moved to QGIS 3 but I still have to maintain QGIS 2.18 projects that are connected to Lizmap. Currently, I switch back and forth between versions using the official repositories, but once 2.18 reaches EOL, I'm guessing that will no longer be possible.
Cheers F On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:46 AM Paolo Cavallini <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nyall, others > > On 27/12/18 22:58, Nyall Dawson wrote: > > 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 think a triaging would be useful here to have a more accurate picture. > Anyone willing to do it and report back? > > > > 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). > > Agreed. It's a matter of communicating properly to users. We have time > to write a blog post and circulating it well before EOL. > Thanks. > > -- > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
