Hi Nyall,
On Wed, 26. Oct 2016 at 17:09:29 +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> "oh but we had already planned our corporate deployment schedule
> around a March release!!11!!". Better to openly discuss this
> possibility so everyone's on the same page.
If we are all on the
Il 26/10/2016 09:09, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:
> I realise that - but March has been thrown around tentatively. I'd
> hate to get to February and then have this blocked by responses like
> "oh but we had already planned our corporate deployment schedule
> around a March release!!11!!". Better to
On 26 October 2016 at 16:22, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
> Hi Nyall,
>
> On Wed, 26. Oct 2016 at 15:53:22 +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>> What are everyone's thoughts on extending the timeline for 3.0?
>
> What timeline is there to extend? We didn't set a date - just had rough
>
Hi Nyall,
On Wed, 26. Oct 2016 at 15:53:22 +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> What are everyone's thoughts on extending the timeline for 3.0?
What timeline is there to extend? We didn't set a date - just had rough ideas.
Jürgen
--
Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel.
Hi,
I agree with Nyall. As this is a major release this requires more time,
have a look at how long it took Python 3 to finally become used for an idea
on how people treat major breaks in API.
As we already have 2.14, 1.6 and 2.18 out the door as a really good base I
don't see a need to rush
Hi,
It would be fine for me to have a double dev cycle for 3.0. Devs should
have enough time to make proper decisions and work on the API. And
python devs probably also need more time to get their most important
plugins in shape for the new API, qt5 and Python 3.
Perhaps it would be good to
Hi all,
I'd like to start the discussion around this early so that we can plan
ahead and not have to make a last-minute decision.
What are everyone's thoughts on extending the timeline for 3.0? In my
opinion things are currently going really well, we have Qt5/python3
builds which are stable