On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 04:46, Bo Victor Thomsen
wrote:
>
> Hi list -
>
> I've summed up some ideas about have to handle the LTR situation. The
> policies is not carved in stone or complete but suggestions for a more stable
> regime regarding LTR (and they have probably already been mentioned
However, you can control the versions of the supporting libraries /in/
OSGeo4W ?
It's mostly the Windows versions of QGIS we have problems with. And all
the QGIS Windows versions is build using OSGeo4W ??
The policies is suggestions. For example: Change only QT from 5.x to
5.x+1 just
On 11/17/21 19:45, Bo Victor Thomsen wrote:
* The supporting libraries ( qt, proj, gdal, ogr etc. ) is covered by
the same rules. Only security or bug patches, never introduce newer
major versions.
You don't control the dependencies outside OSGeo4W, so this is not going
to fly.
+1 you concisely expressed my thoughts about this.
Calvin
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:45 PM Bo Victor Thomsen <
bo.victor.thom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi list -
>
> I've summed up some ideas about have to handle the LTR situation. The
> policies is not carved in stone or complete but suggestions
Hi list -
I've summed up some ideas about have to handle the LTR situation. The
policies is not carved in stone or complete but suggestions for a more
stable regime regarding LTR (and they have probably already been
mentioned sometimes by someones before)
However - Policy for LTR
> [... ]
As an IT administrator in our public organization, I confess that I have
packaged and distributed to all PCs the (old) 3.16.4 version. Why? Because
with this version there are 0 problems among users and with our customized
plugins.
Before the 3.16 release, the other 3.x versions were a
Jürgen E. Fischer writes:
> Hi Bo,
>
> On Tue, 16. Nov 2021 at 18:41:31 +0100, Bo Victor Thomsen wrote:
>> So yes, the LTR point releases are used. Not all point releases will be
>> installed every time, but some will.
>
> So you could agree that a monthly frequency it to high and a point
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 21:00, Bo Victor Thomsen
wrote:
>
> Whatever that's decided regarding the LTR, I personally still will be a
> staunch supporter of QGIS. But please don't throw the baby out with the
> bathwater without due consideration and without trying alternative solutions.
Just to
Hi Jürgen -
So reduce the total number of point releases in the lifetime of a LTR
from ca. 16 to somewhere between 6 or 8 point releases ?
That would be fine for me at least.
I don't think it would disrupt that many update schedules. I never
experienced a single department that implemented
Hi Calvin,
On Tue, 16. Nov 2021 at 15:27:06 -0500, C Hamilton wrote:
> I know this is a question for Bo, but thought I would respond as well.
Sure. The more responses the better.
Jürgen
--
Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31
Dipl.-Inf. (FH)
Jürgen,
I know this is a question for Bo, but thought I would respond as well.
Since we only update QGIS LTR perhaps 1 to 3 times during the lifetime of a
LTR, we do not need monthly LTR releases. The only reason we might update
sooner is if there is a bug found that impacts our users. The latest
Hi Bo,
On Tue, 16. Nov 2021 at 18:41:31 +0100, Bo Victor Thomsen wrote:
> So yes, the LTR point releases are used. Not all point releases will be
> installed every time, but some will.
So you could agree that a monthly frequency it to high and a point release
every two or three month could
Hi Jürgen -
Let me clarify (and make some pretty hefty generalisations, so apologies
beforehand to any IT admin on the list) -
* IT admins don't like to make "new" versions 3.16, 3.18 and
especially not every 4 months. It's a bother to make a new package
from scratch; to register it
Hi Bo,
On Tue, 16. Nov 2021 at 12:00:07 +0100, Bo Victor Thomsen wrote:
> * In my experience, the 1 - year period for LTR is the shortest period
> acceptable for organisations. They don't want to repackage QGIS every 6
> months and certainly not every 4 months. You might even let the period
Hi Everyone,
For the US Federal government, we normally use the LTR version and IT does
not like us updating more than about twice a year. There are a few of us
such as myself who are testing and trying out the new features so we
install the latest version. For the LTR version we usually install
Hi Matthias,
On Tue, 16. Nov 2021 at 12:02:36 +0100, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
> I am very much in favor of evaluating what went wrong and drafting possible
> next steps to improve the situation.
Well, from my point of view there were a few updates late in the release that
started it.
OSGeo4W was
Hi all,
Thank you Bo for this extensive summary of reasons why we should keep
the LTR version.
I can only second that - from the perspective of being employed at a
public organization myself - and from the perspective of I believe the
majority of the Swiss QGIS users. The LTR version is
+1 To everything Bo Victor says, thanks for covering everything I wanted
to say!
In training / education / teaching (in my experience) materials are
usually written for the latest LTR versions, so they don't need to be
updated too frequently.
Best wishes,
Nick.
On 16/11/2021 11:00, Bo
Hi all,
I am very much in favor of evaluating what went wrong and drafting possible
next steps to improve the situation.
Thank you Nyall for starting the discussion and insisting to get things
done. And thanks to the PSC and Marco for sending the information mail.
Some very good points have
Hi all -
I have a few comments regarding the possible removal of the "QGIS LTR
versions" ( as one of the original proponents for having a LTR version ) :
* The LTR version is the version that almost /all/ QGIS-using
/organisations/ in Denmark is using. That means 40 - 50 % of all
Hello all,
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 9:09 PM Andreas Neumann 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
>
Hi,
On Tue, 16. Nov 2021 at 05:57:09 +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:50 AM Marco Bernasocchi wrote:
> Hi Anita, Hi Nyall, Hi All
> I think that it is a good idea to allocate the first half hour (and more
> if needed) in tonight's budget meeting to this very pressing subject.
> Nyall, thanks a lot for your analysis, we'll use it as
Hi Anita, Hi Nyall, Hi All
I think that it is a good idea to allocate the first half hour (and more if
needed) in tonight's budget meeting to this very pressing subject.
Nyall, thanks a lot for your analysis, we'll use it as discussion base.
I extended the meeting invitation from 18:00 to 19:30.
Hi All, I think the first and immediate action to take is to remove 3.16.13
from the website and create a blog post stating the rollback and an apology.
After that, we can analyse, think and communicate about the next action.
@Richard Duivenvoorde if you want you can create a
PR and assign it
On 16.11.2021 06:46, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
On 11/16/21 5:19 AM, Mathieu Pellerin wrote:
Most urgently: we _absolutely_ need to stop advertising 3.16.13 LTR on the
website and fallback to 3.16.11 for now; can someone with access to the website
do that ASAP within the next 24 hours?
On 11/16/21 5:19 AM, Mathieu Pellerin wrote:
> Most urgently: we _absolutely_ need to stop advertising 3.16.13 LTR on the
> website and fallback to 3.16.11 for now; can someone with access to the
> website do that ASAP within the next 24 hours?
That is if I am correct (Juergen?) editing this
Big supportive +1 on looking back at what happened during this last month
with the LTR, draw some lessons and take remedial actions.
Most urgently: we _absolutely_ need to stop advertising 3.16.13 LTR on the
website and fallback to 3.16.11 for now; can someone with access to the
website do that
Hi Nyall,
Thank you for the discussion.
Here are some additional ideas/options:
- 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
Thank you Nyall for the candid assessment.
I'm ready to help wherever I can, which most likely comes down to writing
announcements.
We had the budget meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening but it sounds like we
should get on top of this issue asap.
Regards
Anita
15 Nov 2021 20:57:36 Nyall
30 matches
Mail list logo
