[Qgis-developer] Stability (2.8 LTS) vs development (3.0), a proposed way forward
Guys, The recent thread Nyall kick-started with his “QGIS 3.0?” email got me to think about the eternal stability vs. development dilemma it (re-)exposed through the conversation. More specifically, it got me to brainstorm on the best way forward for QGIS at this juncture and whether there's a way to accommodate both the folks calling for a 2.8 LTS version, and others in need for space to further develop and expand QGIS' capability. And, I might just have found a way to do so. Here's the proposal, in a couple of points: - We make the 2.8 development cycle “fix and refinement”-only, and reduce the cycle's length to 6 to 8 weeks; - The reduced cycle will help everyone's focus on the above goal; - We append the freed 8-10 weeks to the subsequent development cycle, which would become QGIS 3.0; - The expanded cycle will help give space to develop some of the exciting features being cooked by developers (Nyall's Layouts, Marco's Geometry redesign, etc.) and bulletproof those. This, IMHO, caters to both groups demanding stability and space for development. It doesn't discourage or delay too much the grand scheme changes, and pushes out a 2.8 version focused on stability through a shorter cycle focusing on delivering a perfected tool. The above proposal does require a momentary lapse of the nice 4-month release cycle rhythm which the QGIS has successfully maintained for three releases now. But, it might actually be what's needed at this very time. Plus, the length of the two cycles stays the same, 8 months. Comments? I'm obviously particularly interested in what Jürgen has to say :) Cheers Math ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Re: [Qgis-developer] qgis2threejs issue
Hi Paolo, 2014-10-31 18:22 GMT+09:00 Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it: Il 31/10/2014 09:58, Minoru Akagi ha scritto: You need to take some steps. Do not change view extent of map canvas while these steps: 1. save the map canvas as a PNG image. 2. set the background color as PNG transparent color using a photo editor. I used IrfanView for this purpose. 3. in the plugin dialog, select the image file option in the display type group and enter the file path in the edit box. 4. set transparency to 1% to enable transmission, and uncheck the build sides option. 5. do export works smoothly, thanks. IMHO it would be better to make all this automatic. should I open another ticket? I think an option to make the background color of map canvas transparent is useful. Also, if image file has a transparent color (GIF) or alpha channel (RGBA PNG), the transmission option should be automatically enabled. Please open a ticket if you like. Regards, Minoru ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Re: [Qgis-developer] Stability (2.8 LTS) vs development (3.0), a proposed way forward
Yes yes yes. +1 but also +999 :) Roberto 2014-11-10 2:27 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Pellerin nirvn.a...@gmail.com: Guys, The recent thread Nyall kick-started with his “QGIS 3.0?” email got me to think about the eternal stability vs. development dilemma it (re-)exposed through the conversation. More specifically, it got me to brainstorm on the best way forward for QGIS at this juncture and whether there's a way to accommodate both the folks calling for a 2.8 LTS version, and others in need for space to further develop and expand QGIS' capability. And, I might just have found a way to do so. Here's the proposal, in a couple of points: - We make the 2.8 development cycle “fix and refinement”-only, and reduce the cycle's length to 6 to 8 weeks; - The reduced cycle will help everyone's focus on the above goal; - We append the freed 8-10 weeks to the subsequent development cycle, which would become QGIS 3.0; - The expanded cycle will help give space to develop some of the exciting features being cooked by developers (Nyall's Layouts, Marco's Geometry redesign, etc.) and bulletproof those. This, IMHO, caters to both groups demanding stability and space for development. It doesn't discourage or delay too much the grand scheme changes, and pushes out a 2.8 version focused on stability through a shorter cycle focusing on delivering a perfected tool. The above proposal does require a momentary lapse of the nice 4-month release cycle rhythm which the QGIS has successfully maintained for three releases now. But, it might actually be what's needed at this very time. Plus, the length of the two cycles stays the same, 8 months. Comments? I'm obviously particularly interested in what Jürgen has to say :) Cheers Math ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Re: [Qgis-developer] Stability (2.8 LTS) vs development (3.0), a proposed way forward
Hi, I am not part of the development of QGIS, but as a user, please consider the following: Currently every 3rd release of QGIS is billed as a Long Term Release. So: Switch this to February every Even numbered year Yes, this thought is in line with Ubuntu LTS plans, and I am ware not everyone uses Ubuntu, But, As someone who runs a production house, I have to keep both stability and latest features in mind. I run my servers on Ubuntu Server LTS, and know that I have a window of opportunity to change every 2 years. With this is peace of mind, and I can get on with the fun (read: bleeding edge) stuff, knowing that I will not blow up my servers. For those deploying QGIS in a production environment, such peace of mind might also be welcome. So rather than releasing an LTR version every 3rd release (which will slip as the intermediate releases might slip), give the Enterprise users a chance to plan their production installations using a calendar, and not have to keep track of Oh, is this the 2nd or 3rd release coming up???) I chose the Two months before Ubuntu LTS because QGIS could either hang their LTR onto nothing, or coincide it in good time before another reliable release date happens (and thus get the QGIS LTR into the LTS repositories as well). Just a thought. Regards, Zoltan On 2014/11/10 06:57, Geo DrinX wrote: Yes yes yes. +1 but also +999 :) Roberto 2014-11-10 2:27 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Pellerin nirvn.a...@gmail.com mailto:nirvn.a...@gmail.com: Guys, The recent thread Nyall kick-started with his QGIS 3.0? email got me to think about the eternal stability vs. development dilemma it (re-)exposed through the conversation. More specifically, it got me to brainstorm on the best way forward for QGIS at this juncture and whether there's a way to accommodate both the folks calling for a 2.8 LTS version, and others in need for space to further develop and expand QGIS' capability. And, I might just have found a way to do so. Here's the proposal, in a couple of points: - We make the 2.8 development cycle fix and refinement-only, and reduce the cycle's length to 6 to 8 weeks; - The reduced cycle will help everyone's focus on the above goal; - We append the freed 8-10 weeks to the subsequent development cycle, which would become QGIS 3.0; - The expanded cycle will help give space to develop some of the exciting features being cooked by developers (Nyall's Layouts, Marco's Geometry redesign, etc.) and bulletproof those. This, IMHO, caters to both groups demanding stability and space for development. It doesn't discourage or delay too much the grand scheme changes, and pushes out a 2.8 version focused on stability through a shorter cycle focusing on delivering a perfected tool. The above proposal does require a momentary lapse of the nice 4-month release cycle rhythm which the QGIS has successfully maintained for three releases now. But, it might actually be what's needed at this very time. Plus, the length of the two cycles stays the same, 8 months. Comments? I'm obviously particularly interested in what Jürgen has to say :) Cheers Math ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer -- === Zoltan Szecsei PrGISc [PGP0031] Geograph (Pty) Ltd. GIS and Photogrammetric Services P.O. Box 7, Muizenberg 7950, South Africa. Mobile: +27-83-6004028 Fax:+27-86-6115323 www.geograph.co.za === ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Re: [Qgis-developer] Toggle Editing Icon in Layer
Hi Lene On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Lene Fischer l...@ign.ku.dk wrote: Hi, I´m working with 2.6, in the Layer module. I find it difficult to see both the style and the editing pencil because they are on top of each other. I realize that it save space in height, but it has become very difficult to read which layer are in edit mode. Is there a special reason for this change of behavior from 2.4 to 2.6 ? The idea was indeed to reduce the height - and in many cases it helps a lot. Maybe we can just slightly change the way how the editing pencil is shown - for example to put it next to symbol preview icon (instead of drawing over it) - would that work for you? Cheers Martin ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
