Hi, Thanks Nyall for this proposal. I agree this rule should be more explicit. For professional developers, the maintenance cost of their new features should be included somehow in the price. A more explicit rule like this could help to support the message.
For what it's worth I personaly feel frustrated to be so slow to address issues raised by previous works that I've merged in the last months. Hugo On 10/03/2020 23:59, Nyall Dawson wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 20:30, Régis Haubourg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Nyall, >> this sounds reasonable indeed, can we have a bit more background or pointers >> to real cases? > > There's been a lot of "drive by features" over the last 12 months, > where we see work merged and then the original developer disappears. A > decent number of these have been first time QGIS developers. I'd > rather not point to individual cases if that's ok! > >> One issue we faced these past months is that he exponential trafic on the >> issues and PR makes it harder to follow issues and just have the information >> that we could possibly be at stake somewhere. >> Last year I was able to follow +/- 80 % of the discussions. I must admit >> that lastly it became nearly impossible unless to work mostly on QGIS bug >> triaging or coding. > > Yep, I hear you here! The PR queue is really stacking up again now and > stressing me out... > > Nyall > > >> >> I really don't know how we could improve our communication channels. Any >> hint welcome. >> >> Best regards >> Régis >> >> Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 23:14, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi list, >>> >>> I'm after feedback on whether or not others think an explicit >>> policy/contract regarding bug fixing responsibilities for new features >>> is a good idea or not. >>> >>> I would like to see something like this added to the developer guidelines: >>> >>> "Following any new feature development, it is the original developer's >>> (or organisations) SOLE responsibility to implement bug fixes relating >>> to the new feature (or regressions to other parts of QGIS which have >>> resulted from its development). This extends up to the next major QGIS >>> release following the feature being merged*. It is NOT acceptable to >>> use QGIS.org sponsored bug fixing efforts to implement these fixes. >>> Failure to provide fixes to all reasonable bug reports raised for a >>> new feature may lead to that feature being reverted prior to release." >>> >>> *i.e. currently 3.14 >>> >>> Personally, I think having this as part of our developer agreement >>> would help clear up some ambiguity and source of frustration/conflict >>> between developers. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Nyall >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
