Giovanni could you do a triage of the blocker issue queue - it seems
like some could be removed (e.g. http://hub.qgis.org/issues/7619
could be closed?).
I checked the queue and cleaned it as much as possible.
There is a small list of tickets that probably can be closed(*), but
the other 71
Hi
Thanks very much Giovanni. We are holding a PSC meeting tomorrow to
plan the release strategy and your revisions will come in handy for
that.
Regards
Tim
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Giovanni Manghi
giovanni.man...@faunalia.pt wrote:
Giovanni could you do a triage of the blocker issue
Glad to hear you guys will meet on the 2.0 release. In the hope it can help
your meeting, I'd like to share my 2 cents as a QGIS evangelist in
Southeast Asia. Note, I'm running on QGIS master, so the argument below
isn't out of self-interest ;o)
In the beginning of March 2013, Tim announced a
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Mathieu Pellerin nirvn.a...@gmail.comwrote:
I feel that for the SIP upgrade to be considered so late in the release
process, it should be considered within _reasonable confines_ to avoid
un-managed, harmful delays. Ideally, something along the lines of merged
So what's the hard deadline for SIP, this coming weekend?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nathan Woodrow madman...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Mathieu Pellerin nirvn.a...@gmail.comwrote:
I feel that for the SIP upgrade to be considered so late in the release
process,
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
Luca, what about taking the responsibility to maintain a stable branch ?
I'd also love to see a 1.8.1 coming out :)
It is not a bad idea. I'm pretty sure that if QGIS 2.0 will be out soon,
it never will be used in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 30/05/2013 08:02, Luca Manganelli ha scritto:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net
mailto:s...@keybit.net wrote:
Luca, what about taking the responsibility to maintain a stable branch ?
I'd also love to
Hi
I agree the release needs to be delayed, but not indefinitely.
My impression until now was that the feature freeze was interpreted in a
very broad sense. Maybe we could have another period with only bug fixes
(so no api improvements or new features coming as usability fixes).
Regards,
Hi!
+1 For Marco and Tim
Means: two last features should go into the Release :
1. Plugin Manager (already waiting to be merged)
2. SIPv2 (status unknown but would definitely easen the life for the next
years if it would be in 2.0)
And we should really go into deep feature freeze right now
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:29:13PM +0200, Tim Sutton wrote:
Hi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Filipe Dias wrote:
I agree with Giovanni. As an end user I'd rather wait a few more months
than get an
Sandro Santilli-2 wrote
That's why maintainance releases are important.
We're only 1 blocker away from a 1.7.5, and 10 blockers away from 1.8.1.
--strk;
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@.osgeo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 29/05/2013 17:17, Régis Haubourg ha scritto:
I totally agree. We've been pushing many new features and changing API is a
great step.
2.x branch will be the start for complete switch from arcgis or Mapinfo in
some administrations here. We will
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Werner Macho werner.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
Means: two last features should go into the Release :
1. Plugin Manager (already waiting to be merged)
OK.
2. SIPv2 (status unknown but would definitely easen the life for the next
years if it would be in 2.0)
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 29/05/2013 18:52, Radim Blazek ha scritto:
I agree, another 3 weeks to fix blockers and release by the end of
June. The next possible release date IMO is the end of September (2
months of holidays + one month to consolidate again).
Agreed. If
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.itwrote:
Hi all.
What is a blocker? something that prevents users from upgrading to the
newer version.
This is why we (in a public organization) are still using 1.7.4, due to a
stupid blocker (the famous postgres duplicate
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:46:42PM +0200, Luca Manganelli wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.itwrote:
Hi all.
What is a blocker? something that prevents users from upgrading to the
newer version.
This is why we (in a public organization) are
Hi,
Undoubtedly we will have to release with blockers
please no :)
It would be a huge blow to QGIS reputation as there are actually
blockers that make QGIS really unusable for any real life job.
cheers!
-- Giovanni --
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
I agree with Giovanni. As an end user I'd rather wait a few more months
than get an imcomplete version of QGIS 2.0.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Manghi
giovanni.man...@faunalia.pt wrote:
Hi,
Undoubtedly we will have to release with blockers
please no :)
It would be a huge
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Filipe Dias wrote:
I agree with Giovanni. As an end user I'd rather wait a few more months
than get an imcomplete version of QGIS 2.0.
+1
Also note that there are currently 10 crasher tickets filed against 1.8.0,
and even 1 against 1.7.4.
--strk;
On
GPS para Centro America, Asia o Sur America
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:48:28 +0200
From: s...@keybit.net
To: filipesd...@gmail.com
CC: qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org; giovanni.man...@faunalia.pt
Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] QGIS 2.0 and beyond
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:41:24PM +0100
Hi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Filipe Dias wrote:
I agree with Giovanni. As an end user I'd rather wait a few more months
than get an imcomplete version of QGIS 2.0.
+1
Also note that there are currently
For me there is mainly one thing (feature) is missing for QGIS 2.0: The
upgrade to the new PyQt API (aka. SIP API V2) I would really not want
to see a QGIS 2.0 without this update. I really hope, that this is
going to be taken care of by someone.
We could also look for sponsors to make this
Hi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Giovanni Manghi
giovanni.man...@faunalia.pt wrote:
Hi,
Undoubtedly we will have to release with blockers
please no :)
It would be a huge blow to QGIS reputation as there are actually
blockers that make QGIS really unusable for any real life job.
ALL the
Hi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Matthias Kuhn matthias.k...@gmx.ch wrote:
For me there is mainly one thing (feature) is missing for QGIS 2.0: The
upgrade to the new PyQt API (aka. SIP API V2) I would really not want
to see a QGIS 2.0 without this update. I really hope, that this is
going
Hi,
To me - if a feature worked in QGIS 1.8 but fails in 2.0 - esp. if we
paid for its development in QGIS 1.8 - then it is also a blocker.
How could I otherwise justify our expenses in QGIS to my boss? Well you
know - we paid for this feature to be developed - but maybe with the
next version it
Hi Tim,
ALL the blockers should make QGIS really unusuable, otherwise IMHO
they shouldn't be blockers. Many of the items in the blocker list are
indeed irritations but I think the blocker list needs to be
aggressively pruned of items that aren't actually causing crashes /
data corruption or
Hi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Giovanni Manghi
giovanni.man...@faunalia.pt wrote:
Hi Tim,
ALL the blockers should make QGIS really unusuable, otherwise IMHO
they shouldn't be blockers. Many of the items in the blocker list are
indeed irritations but I think the blocker list needs to be
Hi Tim,
Giovanni could you do a triage of the blocker issue queue - it seems
like some could be removed (e.g. http://hub.qgis.org/issues/7619
could be closed?).
yes I can, but (full time) not until later *next* week as I'm Cape
Verde to give an extensive QGIS training course.
cheers!
Hi
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Giovanni Manghi
giovanni.man...@faunalia.pt wrote:
Hi Tim,
Giovanni could you do a triage of the blocker issue queue - it seems
like some could be removed (e.g. http://hub.qgis.org/issues/7619
could be closed?).
yes I can, but (full time) not until
As a first step, could we all individually go to the hub and review our
blockers to possibly remove some blockers that are not crucial to a 2.0
release or dups of previous reports? That would facilitate Giovanni's job.
Also, while ideally a product should be shipped regression-free, this needs
to
Hey all,
So what is the current plans for once QGIS 2.0 is released. Are we
planning on making minor point releases, or at least weekly builds on a
different branch for the major platforms e.g 2.0.1. As 2.0 is going to be a
massive release I have no doubt there might be things that pop up after
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 27/05/2013 12:41, Nathan Woodrow ha scritto:
Hey all,
So what is the current plans for once QGIS 2.0 is released. Are we planning
on
making minor point releases, or at least weekly builds on a different branch
for the
major platforms e.g
Hi Nathan,
good top open this thread, you are right that bugfixing releases will
probably be necessary.
Concerning new features, I just point out that I will work and try to focus
on improvements and new features described here [0] , if that helps to
define roadmap versions:
[0]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 27/05/2013 13:04, Régis Haubourg ha scritto:
Concerning new features, I just point out that I will work and try to focus
on improvements and new features described here [0] , if that helps to
define roadmap versions:
[0]
I see we have a lot of blockers, and new tickets are flocking in.
and fixes would also need to be tested, and it is time consuming...
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Hi
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 27/05/2013 12:41, Nathan Woodrow ha scritto:
Hey all,
So what is the current plans for once QGIS 2.0 is released. Are we
planning on
making minor point
36 matches
Mail list logo
