Hi all, On 28/12/18 10:08, Mathieu Pellerin wrote: > Jumping in the discussion to offer thoughts on the bigger picture here: > while we have a few dozen regressions filed against 3.4 LTR, it's also > true that 3.4 LTR has _countless_ fixes and refinements - not referring > to new features here - when compared to 2.18 which adds a big amount of > positive in the balance here. > > Big +1 to using the near EOL of 2.X to advocate for some funding to > address the remaining regressions, and a huge -1 to the idea of > extending the lifespan of 2.18 LTR. > > Beyond the feasibility issues of a zero regression target, IMHO we would > simply make ourselves and our users a disservice. Beyond the platform > improvements of (Qt5, Python3, etc.) and the above-mentioned fixes and > refinements 3.X, which users can safely embrace as of 3.4.3, the reality > of the 2.18.X branch is that the code is so divergent from master that > it's essentially "retired" code. Most of the fixes committed to master / > 3.4 LTR can't be straightforwardly backported to 2.18.X anymore. EOL for > 2.18 is simply mirroring a code reality as of the end of 2018.
glad we seem to agree on most of the issues, if not all. 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
