If I may make a request, If it is decided to move forward with 4.2 to become the next LTR, could we add a new item in the OSGeo4W Network installer for qgis-3-ltr? This so that we don’t loose access to 3.44 LTR when the 4.x LTR is eventually released. The missing HTML frame support in QGIS 4 is currently the blocker for us.
Thanks, [cid:[email protected]] Ethan Snyder Senior GIS/GPS Technician & Software Engineer [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: David Signer <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 6:24 AM To: Denis Rouzaud <[email protected]> Cc: QGIS PSC <[email protected]>; qgis-developer <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [QGIS-Developer] [Qgis-psc] Next 4.x LTR Thanks, Denis, for raising this topic. I understand the considerations publishing 4.2 as LTR. But I believe many users would be disappointed by another rescheduling. They have been waiting quite a while for a release with more than 4 months of support, especially since we already rescheduled release 4.0. For most of them, an LTR is nothing else than a release that gets longer support. Of course, we would need to make it clear that e.g. HTML support is not provided and that moving from 3 to 4 is a big step that carries some risks. I just wanted to point this out. Anyway I'm open to being convinced that a reschedule is really necessary. Thanks anyway and cheers Dave On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 11:22 AM Denis Rouzaud via QGIS-PSC <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear PSC, dear Devs, On the release schedule, the next LTR still targets 4.2.4 in October. Two things to consider from https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/377<https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/377>: - HTML print layout support is targeted for 4.4 (which is/seems to be a big blocker, requiring a backport) - The stability of 4.2 is questioned I also feel that we could wait for 4.4 to do a LTR but the timing is getting critical. "Enterprise" users are wondering what is the current status, and we don't have a clear answer. I believe it would be the right time to take a decision on this? So we can tell users a bit more in advance. Or is the decision already taken to stick to the plan? A related matter is the following question of keeping backports to 3.44. Cheers, Denis _______________________________________________ QGIS-PSC mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc<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
