<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Just to stretch my point -<br>
<ul>
<li>I'm not argumenting for a "regular" LTS version in parallel
with a development version including back-porting and patching
to several versions of QGIS. I have developed software for 30
years; I know the efforts and pains of parallel versions :-/<br>
</li>
<li>I'm trying to make a case for taking every <b>third</b>
development cycle and <b>minimizing</b> the addition of new
features in this cycle and <b>maximizing </b>the bug
fixing/testing/documentation effort. <br>
</li>
<li>Have a "clean-up" period for around one month after the
"bug-fix" version release. In this period every new bug fix
should be added to both the "bug-fix" release and the new
developer release (OK, some parallel patching to 2 QGIS
versions). <br>
</li>
<li>After the clean-up period there would be a mandatory point
release of the "bug-fix" release. And after that: No further
work on this "bug-fix" version.</li>
</ul>
We can discuss the details and length of the different periods. But
the main points is for every third development cycle: A minimum of
new features and a maximum effort in
bug-fixing/testing/translation/tutorials/documentation, i.e: all the
"secondary" efforts in making good and stable software. With the
current cycle periods there would be one "bug-fix" version every
year. This period coincide - in my experience - with the minimum
accepted time periods between software version updates in most large
organisations.<br>
<br>
Regards <br>
Bo Victor Thomsen<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>