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
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
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,
-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,
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
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
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
-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!).
-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
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
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
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.
-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
-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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
