Hi all, Il 22/11/19 23:20, Even Rouault ha scritto:
> Or one might consider a mixed approach to have a good compromise of agility > vs > tighter control: > - use time-based approach, as done currently, for non-LTR versions. > - formally approve the release of LTR versions, and important engineering > decisions that affect them, as there are the ones with the most user > exposure. > Sometime ago I also suggested to possibly consider 2 phases in a LTR life- > cycle: first half where quite "aggressive" backporting is accepted (if it > doesn't break API, etc..), second half where a much more conservative > approach > is taken. It is rather obvious that a .0, .1 needs more stabilization than a . > 12 or a .13 > > Just food for thought :-) > > Even > > (*) even bugfix ones, which is admidetly sometimes a bit overkill > Thanks everybody for the analysis and the proposals. IMHO the LTR should be as stable as possible, so I agree that changing things now it's unfortunate. An alternative is to freeze it, and don't release further updates. Are there important bugfixes preventing us to do so? Cheers. -- 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
