Re: [Qgis-developer] Stability (2.8 LTS) vs development (3.0), a proposed way forward
Anita, Thanks for pointing out QEP#4, I wasn't aware of it. Tim has done an impressive work there. The above-mentioned QEP is a long term thing, what I was suggesting is a very short term (i.e. 2 cycles) proposal to try and satisfy the current needs for stability and devlopment momentum. I also am familiar with the discussion surrounding the 4 month cycle dates having been carefully chosen, hence why I was thinking that redistributing weeks within the context of two cycles wouldn't break that on the long term (i.e., by the end of the proposed two cycles, we're still 8 months from now, etc.) Math On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Anita Graser anitagra...@gmx.at wrote: Are you aware of QEP3? Please read Tim's suggestion. There are good reasons for this stable 4 month cycle at exactly the current release times of the year. Best wishes Anita On Nov 10, 2014 5:57 AM, Geo DrinX geodr...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ 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
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Geo DrinX geodr...@gmail.com wrote: Yes yes yes. +1 but also +999 :) And why not + ? ___ 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
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Luca Manganelli luc...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Geo DrinX geodr...@gmail.com wrote: Yes yes yes. +1 but also +999 :) And why not + ? Seeing this I can't resist to quote a bit of PEP-10 [1] +1 I like it +0 I don't care, but go ahead -0 I don't care, so why bother? -1 I hate it You may occasionally see wild flashes of enthusiasm (either for or against) with vote scores like +2, +1000, or -1000. These aren't really valued much beyond the above scores, but it's nice to see people get excited about such geeky stuff. Cheers Martin [1] http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0010/ ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 10/11/2014 09:31, Martin Dobias ha scritto: really valued much beyond the above scores, but it's nice to see people get excited about such geeky stuff. Hi all, I hate cooling down the enthusiasm, but I really see LTS as an empty word. To me, the whole issue boils down to having resources to do serious backporting of fixes. Without that, LTS will have no practical effect, as users will use the latest, more bugfixed version. This is exactly what has happened in the past. So from my point of view what we need is not +something, but funders supporting backporting. I'd be against spending our limited core funding for this. In short: power users, if you need stability, please set aside some funds to stably support a backporter, year round, and you'll have your much sought after long term stability. All the best. - -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRgeowACgkQ/NedwLUzIr7k+gCeI1wmQ+nW7c7GepaNJewSDD6W jTcAnifJPwxN1WZ51CWaIB5gGzsssm26 =4OQL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it wrote: To me, the whole issue boils down to having resources to do serious backporting of fixes. Without that, LTS will have no practical effect, as users will use the latest, more bugfixed version. more bugfixed is not always true. We had issues with 1.8.0 and 2.2.0 and we refused to use them in our organization due to critical bugs that are fixed in newer version, but they have sometimes introduced other. So, I believe that in production environment the most stable (!= latest) version is used. For almost 2 years we used 1.7.4, for me the most stable QGIS version in earth (more than 2.4 and 2.6!). ___ 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
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:42:42AM +0100, Luca Manganelli wrote: So, I believe that in production environment the most stable (!= latest) version is used. For almost 2 years we used 1.7.4, for me the most stable QGIS version in earth (more than 2.4 and 2.6!). Yep, that little third number in the version is really special. Finally, it's being given the importance it deserves, thanks Tim for the effort in writing a plan for it: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/6 --strk; Please help taking QGIS to the next level of quality. Before November 15 ! http://blog.vitu.ch/10102014-1046/crowdfunding-initiative-automated-testing ___ 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
So, I believe that in production environment the most stable (!= latest) version is used. For almost 2 years we used 1.7.4, for me the most stable QGIS version in earth (more than 2.4 and 2.6!). Oh man. I couldn't even use 1.7.4 anymore it's so old ;) Anyway the point is a valid one. Running the latest != most stable. IMO we don't need resources to do bug fixing. The dev that does the bug fix in master can do it in the 2.x branch for that stable release if it is relevant.. This obviously has to be done smart but using the recent crash and project corruption as an example that Martin fixed right away, to me this warrants a new release off that branch, LTS or not, as project corruption is a really really bad look. - Nathan On Mon Nov 10 2014 at 7:43:27 PM Luca Manganelli luc...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it wrote: To me, the whole issue boils down to having resources to do serious backporting of fixes. Without that, LTS will have no practical effect, as users will use the latest, more bugfixed version. more bugfixed is not always true. We had issues with 1.8.0 and 2.2.0 and we refused to use them in our organization due to critical bugs that are fixed in newer version, but they have sometimes introduced other. So, I believe that in production environment the most stable (!= latest) version is used. For almost 2 years we used 1.7.4, for me the most stable QGIS version in earth (more than 2.4 and 2.6!). ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 10/11/2014 10:42, Luca Manganelli ha scritto: So, I believe that in production environment the most stable (!= latest) version is used. For almost 2 years we used 1.7.4, for me the most stable QGIS version in earth (more than 2.4 and 2.6!). There is no such a thing as the most stable version: what is blocking for an user is not relevant for another. I have customers and friends that cannot upgrade to various versions for very specific bugs. I'm sorry to insist: backporting fixes is the only relevant thing in this issue, IMO. All the best. - -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRgi80ACgkQ/NedwLUzIr7pLwCePSD5Z+1SXav/K3L3dVa5wQDS fT4An1zPtLE2u6L94t4El8siPZvEDOat =1S/2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 10/11/2014 10:56, Nathan Woodrow ha scritto: IMO we don't need resources to do bug fixing. The dev that does the bug fix in master can do it in the 2.x branch for that stable release if Sorry I do not agree here: we had many cases of fixes breaking other stuff, so backporting should be done with great care, and lots of extra work; that's why I believe that without significant resources we are not going to solve the problem satisfactorily. All the best. - -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRgjH0ACgkQ/NedwLUzIr72yQCdHYe2bCc19H3eyfsammiMur1P KtEAnik3lf96t2D1daJ4ZaiST8Rw5Qtd =0gqs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 Paolo and all developers, Il 10/11/2014 09.42, Paolo Cavallini ha scritto: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 10/11/2014 09:31, Martin Dobias ha scritto: really valued much beyond the above scores, but it's nice to see people get excited about such geeky stuff. Hi all, I hate cooling down the enthusiasm, but I really see LTS as an empty word. To me, the whole issue boils down to having resources to do serious backporting of fixes. Without that, LTS will have no practical effect, as users will use the latest, more bugfixed version. This is exactly what has happened in the past. So from my point of view what we need is not +something, but funders supporting backporting. I'd be against spending our limited core funding for this. Reading this post i get a bit confused about the future of QGIS and its target, because in the QGIS Release schedule for 2015 (QGIS web site) there is a 2.8 LTR release, maybe this LTR release is to be bugfixed, maybe just a release to stuck with if you don't like to switch but with no planned bug fixing, this is no clear to me ... In short: power users, if you need stability, please set aside some funds to stably support a backporter, year round, and you'll have your much sought after long term stability. It is also nice to have someone who keeps us with our feet on the ground :-) thanks and regards, Roy. ___ 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
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:56:22AM +, Nathan Woodrow wrote: relevant.. This obviously has to be done smart but using the recent crash and project corruption as an example that Martin fixed right away, to me this warrants a new release off that branch, LTS or not, as project corruption is a really really bad look. Well, while I'd agree on that if there was no concept of LTS, in presence of LTS whatever corruption happens would have to be expected by users in all but LTS releases, meaning there'd be no rush to ever cut a new release unless the week of silence following fix in LTS branch event happens. How far away would next (first) LTS be ? --strk; Please help taking QGIS to the next level of quality. Before November 15 ! http://blog.vitu.ch/10102014-1046/crowdfunding-initiative-automated-testing ___ 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 all, QEP #4 allows to do backports for every release. Not only LTR. 2.6.1 will be very welcome. LTR releases will be available for 1 year and will receive bugfixes during that time. That's not going to happen magically. That requires power users and organizations to help the development. Thank you Paolo for raising this important point. QEP #4 IMO outlines a frame in which organizations have more security in what they invest. Documentation will be valid for a longer timeframe. Things are less likely to break. There is the possibility of introducing a new bug with another fix. But that's not a reason at all to not fix something. Organizations which are using LTR will probably now already be testing new releases heavily before they deploy. That will help to discover such bugs fast. Backporting features is not something I would like to see. That really introduces a bigger risk of breaking things. If that's done we could just stick to the current release schedule. (For every feature you will find somebody who asks for a backport to LTR). To me, QEP #4 is a wonderful plan. It needs the support of organizations! Maybe some organizations can build a pool with funds and Q/A that is determined to maintain that version? Regards, Matthias -- Help getting QGIS to the next level of quality before November 15! http://blog.vitu.ch/10102014-1046/crowdfunding-initiative-automated-testing ___ 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
A couple of thoughts from a non-dev looking inwards: Sorry I do not agree here: we had many cases of fixes breaking other stuff Would not something like Unit Tests help ameliorate that? That's what they're designed for isn't it? I realise the state of QGIS' unit test infrastructure isn't optimal currently, but I thought I saw a project to fix get funding recently. : what is blocking for an user is not relevant for another. I have customers and friends that cannot upgrade to various versions for very specific bugs. Then why not fix the bugs and require them to be backported? I know that seems flippant, but is there a reason that backporting by the submitter/committer can't be required for any bugfix submitted? If a bugfix breaks other stuff, then either the bugfix should be regressed or the breakage fixed with another fix. Neither of these suggestions would require any outlay from the QGIS core fund, though they may increase the cost of any individual feature/bugfix. I believe GeoServer does both of these and has a healthy 30-day release schedule consisting of up to 3 branches despite having considerably fewer resources than QGIS. Just my 2p. Cheers, Jonathan -Original Message- From: qgis-developer-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:qgis-developer-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Cavallini Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:59 AM To: qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] Stability (2.8 LTS) vs development (3.0), a proposed way forward -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 10/11/2014 10:56, Nathan Woodrow ha scritto: IMO we don't need resources to do bug fixing. The dev that does the bug fix in master can do it in the 2.x branch for that stable release if Sorry I do not agree here: we had many cases of fixes breaking other stuff, so backporting should be done with great care, and lots of extra work; that's why I believe that without significant resources we are not going to solve the problem satisfactorily. All the best. - -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRgjH0ACgkQ/NedwLUzIr72yQCdHYe2bCc19H3eyfsammiMur1P KtEAnik3lf96t2D1daJ4ZaiST8Rw5Qtd =0gqs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/IIyLovGDSdTGX2PQPOmvUizKrmxxhcEGFn0HB2PmJETu!FF59CPCcZfM1iyAeuy4hu5YqLyvUFQhei1KLnaPDA== to report this email as spam. HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries uses faxes and emails for confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not of themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them. If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately and destroy all copies of it. HR Wallingford Limited Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom Registered in England No. 02562099 ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all. Il 10/11/2014 13:13, Jonathan Moules ha scritto: Then why not fix the bugs and require them to be backported? I know that seems flippant, but is there a reason that backporting by the submitter/committer can't be required for any bugfix submitted? If a bugfix breaks other stuff, then either the bugfix should be regressed or the breakage fixed with another fix. Agreed. Please consider, however, that this generally not something that comes for free, and it will increase the cost of the bugfix, so the customers must be clearly aware of this. All the best. - -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRgwFkACgkQ/NedwLUzIr67jACdHvj10iJOnyFZAQL3iZedquqF ingAnRqGBy5hs2mKjCbWvlppuwo5+h71 =y+Y+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
[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] 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
