<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Anita,<br><br>Thanks for pointing out QEP#4, I wasn't aware of it. Tim has done an impressive work there.<br><br></div>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.)<br><br></div>Math<br><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Anita Graser <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anitagraser@gmx.at" target="_blank">anitagraser@gmx.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Best wishes<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Anita</font></span></p><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 10, 2014 5:57 AM, "Geo DrinX" <<a href="mailto:geodrinx@gmail.com" target="_blank">geodrinx@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Yes yes yes.<div><br></div><div>+1</div><div><br></div><div>but also +999 :)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Roberto</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-11-10 2:27 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Pellerin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nirvn.asia@gmail.com" target="_blank">nirvn.asia@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Guys,<br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>And, I might just have found a way to do so. Here's the proposal, in a couple of points:<br><br>- We make the 2.8 development cycle “fix and refinement”-only, and reduce the cycle's length to 6 to 8 weeks;<br>- The reduced cycle will help everyone's focus on the above goal;<br>- We append the freed 8-10 weeks to the subsequent development cycle, which would become QGIS 3.0;<br>- 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Comments? I'm obviously particularly interested in what Jürgen has to say :)<br><br>Cheers<br><br>Math<br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Qgis-developer mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Qgis-developer mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br></blockquote></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>