Hello all, On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 9:09 PM Andreas Neumann <[email protected]> wrote:
> - strictly separate the build systems and libraries of LTR and regular > releases. Parts of the problem stem from the fact that during the lifetime > of an LTR underlying libraries are updated. Ideally, the libraries of the > LT releases only receive bug fixes, but no new features > - put more resources into manual testing > - put more resources into packaging in general > - let every release be checked manually by a couple of dedicates power > users (at least the LTR ones) before it goes out to the public > > I know - all of these need personal/financial resources. > > Andreas > Since resources are limited, another thing we may consider is to reduce the number of releases per year. If on top of that, we could add a packaging freeze period, it would be possible to run installers' manual tests before they are released to the general public. Here are some test plans we prepared for QEP 180: https://qgis.tenant.kiwitcms.org/plan/search/ These are only examples, we can think about more tests, especially things that can't be caught by CI. Best regards, Alexandre Neto > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 20:57, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi lists, >> >> I'd like to start some conversation about the dire condition of the >> QGIS LTR release and what we can do to remedy/avoid this in future. >> >> If you've missed the conversation, our QGIS 3.16 windows releases have >> been completely broken for nearly a month now. 3.16.12 had a critical >> issue which caused lockups in Python code, and now 3.16.13 has >> completely broken projection handling (resulting in loss of CRS, >> hangups when opening projects, etc). >> >> So what do we do? I can think of a few responses we could make: >> >> - Kill 3.16.13 with fire. It needs to be removed from the website and >> all traces of the internet ASAP. Rollback to only offering 3.16.11, >> which is the last good Windows 3.16 release. >> >> - Put out a massive apology (and ask users to step up their funding to >> better maintain QGIS releases in future ;) >> >> - Mark 3.16 as an early EOL. (I can't see anyone interested in >> resolving the actual issue, so we've no way forward here in releasing >> a "good" 3.16 release again.) >> >> - Write the LTR releases off as a failed concept. (i.e. if we don't >> have the resources to maintain them properly, we shouldn't be offering >> them at all and should resort back to the single maintained release at >> any one time situation.) >> >> - Lower the supported period of a LTR release to 6 months? >> >> - Offer "theoretical" LTR releases ONLY as source code, but leave it >> to users to compile themselves and accept responsibility for their own >> packaging of this release. >> >> - Go on a funding drive so that QGIS can **pay** a developer and >> packager so that we actually CAN say we have stable LTR releases >> again? >> >> - ...something else...? >> >> Suffice to say, these are big issues, with big responses. But we're >> also under extreme time pressure here -- 3.16 is broken beyond belief, >> and we DO need to make some public responses asap (i.e. TODAY!!!!) >> >> Nyall >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-psc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >> > > > -- > > -- > Andreas Neumann > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-psc mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >
_______________________________________________ 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
