<p dir="ltr">Hi Mathias,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I am aware that there's no longer two master branches for QGIS. If I recall, this approach was used while there was some indefinition about the next releases. And master_2 was put to sleep as soon as possible, because it was a burden to maintain.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For that reason I would prefer branching 2.18 documentation with backport fixes. But I think there might be some implications with the transitions.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Anyway, I would just like to have a way to contribute to QGIS 3.0 documentation.</p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">A sex, 3/03/2017, 17:21, Matthias Kuhn <<a href="mailto:matthias@opengis.ch">matthias@opengis.ch</a>> escreveu:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Alexandre<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
On 03/03/2017 05:46 PM, Alexandre Neto wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
> Hi all,<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Sorry to come back to this thread. But, although it seems that we will<br class="gmail_msg">
> have a 2.18 documentation release, we are still blocking the<br class="gmail_msg">
> documentation of new features arriving to the QGIS 3.0 Branch. And there<br class="gmail_msg">
> are tons of it.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> So, could we adopt some strategy about this? Maybe two master branches<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
There is only one master branch at the moment (master_2 was sent to the<br class="gmail_msg">
happy hunting grounds a couple of months ago).<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
So if the decision is to work on two branches in parallel, better work<br class="gmail_msg">
on release-2_18 and master.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
If you have an eye on the qgis/release-2_18 branch and compare it to the<br class="gmail_msg">
commits on documentation/master, I think backporting might indeed be<br class="gmail_msg">
worth a try.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
But remember, that I've got no idea about your workflows ;)<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
Matthias<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
> if necessary (as done for QGIS code). Or branch 2.18 documentation, work<br class="gmail_msg">
> normally in master and backport all functionalities that were missing?<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Any opinions or ideas?<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Thanks!<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Alexandre Neto <<a href="mailto:senhor.neto@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">senhor.neto@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:senhor.neto@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">senhor.neto@gmail.com</a>>><br class="gmail_msg">
> escreveu no dia quarta, 22/02/2017 às 12:50:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> I can try. Although I don't have your eye for details. :-)<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> A qua, 22/02/2017, 12:01, DelazJ <<a href="mailto:delazj@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">delazj@gmail.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:delazj@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">delazj@gmail.com</a>>> escreveu:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Hi,<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> 2017-02-22 0:38 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Neto <<a href="mailto:senhor.neto@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">senhor.neto@gmail.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:senhor.neto@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">senhor.neto@gmail.com</a>>>:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> According to the latest news, it seems that there will make<br class="gmail_msg">
> sense to have a 2.18 Documentation release...<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Sorry for trying to "rush" it to 3.0. Or will it be 3.2?<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Anyway, I am going to put some effort in fixing 2.x issues<br class="gmail_msg">
> in the user's manual.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Like reviewing some of the pending pull requests? :)<br class="gmail_msg">
> Thanks<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> H.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> A qui, 9/02/2017, 09:39, DelazJ <<a href="mailto:delazj@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">delazj@gmail.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:delazj@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">delazj@gmail.com</a>>> escreveu:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Hi,<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Alexandre, Thanks for the clarification. Indeed we need<br class="gmail_msg">
> to hear people once for all on this (these) topic(s) and<br class="gmail_msg">
> ensure any contribution is not rejected or discouraged.<br class="gmail_msg">
> And I think making PR guarantee that a contribution is<br class="gmail_msg">
> taken into account (we still have a queue shorter than<br class="gmail_msg">
> QGIS repo's :) )<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Richard, I think it's more than clear that the next<br class="gmail_msg">
> application release is 3.0 and the 2.x serie is behind<br class="gmail_msg">
> us now. It's also clear that after 2.14, the next LTR<br class="gmail_msg">
> will be 3.2. Btw, we need to update a bit<br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="http://qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/development/roadmap.html#release-schedule" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/development/roadmap.html#release-schedule</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> The 2.x vs 3.0 issue reports separation in Doc repo was<br class="gmail_msg">
> at that time due to the hypothetic release of a QGIS<br class="gmail_msg">
> 2.20 which would be a LTR hence would deserve a<br class="gmail_msg">
> documentation (due to the rule "only LTRs are<br class="gmail_msg">
> documented"). Now there will be no 2.20 and the next LTR<br class="gmail_msg">
> is two releases away so, as Richard said "the main<br class="gmail_msg">
> question is: do we decide to NOT release a newer<br class="gmail_msg">
> documentation(!) 2.x branch anymore this year.?" In<br class="gmail_msg">
> other words: Do we keep 2.x series documentation at 2.14<br class="gmail_msg">
> level, while there are 2.16 and 2.18 releases that would<br class="gmail_msg">
> surely be used for a while?<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> That's all! And I'm fine with whatever (argumented)<br class="gmail_msg">
> answer is made! if the answer is a categoric No :),<br class="gmail_msg">
> let's pull 3.0 fixes<br class="gmail_msg">
> If the answer is "Yes, we want to release a 2.18<br class="gmail_msg">
> documentation" (without translation of course), we can<br class="gmail_msg">
> still begin working on 3.0 issues by creating a master_2<br class="gmail_msg">
> branch for 2.18 fixes and port fixes from a branch to<br class="gmail_msg">
> another. It has been made with QGIS repo. I'm sure it 'd<br class="gmail_msg">
> not be that hard to maintain. It's not like if we have<br class="gmail_msg">
> codes, it's all about text (more understandable and<br class="gmail_msg">
> cherry-pickable for me, anyway).<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Btw, given that we are in dev list, allow me to remind<br class="gmail_msg">
> that in the thread in psc-list, there was a call for<br class="gmail_msg">
> devs to help maintain and reinforce the backend of<br class="gmail_msg">
> documentation.... you are welcome... Thanks<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Regards,<br class="gmail_msg">
> Harrissou<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> 2017-02-09 8:36 GMT+01:00 Richard Duivenvoorde<br class="gmail_msg">
> <<a href="mailto:rdmailings@duif.net" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">rdmailings@duif.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rdmailings@duif.net" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">rdmailings@duif.net</a>>>:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> On 08-02-17 12:42, Alexandre Neto wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
> > My concerns are about this part:<br class="gmail_msg">
> ><br class="gmail_msg">
> > /"Then, afaict, a part of this commit is more<br class="gmail_msg">
> about QGIS 3 changes and I<br class="gmail_msg">
> > am not sure we are currently documenting QGIS3 stuffs (still waiting for<br class="gmail_msg">
> > comments and decision in this thread<br class="gmail_msg">
> ><br class="gmail_msg">
> <<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2017-January/005060.html" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2017-January/005060.html</a>>)."<br class="gmail_msg">
> ><br class="gmail_msg">
> > /<br class="gmail_msg">
> > So, with my email, I just wanted to go back to the discussion of what<br class="gmail_msg">
> > versions we are planning/want to release and have a decision. Also, make<br class="gmail_msg">
> > sure that whatever the decision on that, we have a solution that does<br class="gmail_msg">
> > not put a developer's (or anyone else) PR on hold (not merged) if they<br class="gmail_msg">
> > want to contribute documentation for the current is master version.<br class="gmail_msg">
> > Mainly because people's availability and motivation can be affected by that.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Hi Alexandre,<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> the main reason holding back 3.0 descriptions from<br class="gmail_msg">
> master is to be able<br class="gmail_msg">
> to release a (nowadays pretty theoretical?) new LTR<br class="gmail_msg">
> in 2.x branch.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> This in case that waiting for a stable 3.x (plus a<br class="gmail_msg">
> reasonable set of<br class="gmail_msg">
> working python plugins!) would take too long, and<br class="gmail_msg">
> the community would<br class="gmail_msg">
> decide or ask for another 2.x release to be able to<br class="gmail_msg">
> do their daily work<br class="gmail_msg">
> with QGIS.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> IF we are more or less sure that there will NO MORE<br class="gmail_msg">
> 2.x QGIS (LTR's?)<br class="gmail_msg">
> anymore, we can decide to lift this clear 2.x - 3.x<br class="gmail_msg">
> separation (thanks<br class="gmail_msg">
> Harrissou for defending this :-) ).<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> So the main question is: do we decide to NOT release<br class="gmail_msg">
> a newer<br class="gmail_msg">
> documentation(!) 2.x branch anymore this year.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Regards,<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Richard<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> --<br class="gmail_msg">
> Alexandre Neto<br class="gmail_msg">
> ---------------------<br class="gmail_msg">
> @AlexNetoGeo<br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="http://gisunchained.wordpress.com" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://gisunchained.wordpress.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> --<br class="gmail_msg">
> Alexandre Neto<br class="gmail_msg">
> ---------------------<br class="gmail_msg">
> @AlexNetoGeo<br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="http://gisunchained.wordpress.com" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://gisunchained.wordpress.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> --<br class="gmail_msg">
> Alexandre Neto<br class="gmail_msg">
> ---------------------<br class="gmail_msg">
> @AlexNetoGeo<br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="http://gisunchained.wordpress.com" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://gisunchained.wordpress.com</a><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> _______________________________________________<br class="gmail_msg">
> Qgis-developer mailing list<br class="gmail_msg">
> <a href="mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> List info: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br class="gmail_msg">
> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
_______________________________________________<br class="gmail_msg">
Qgis-developer mailing list<br class="gmail_msg">
<a href="mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="gmail_msg">
List info: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br class="gmail_msg">
Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a></blockquote></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Alexandre Neto</div><div>---------------------</div><div>@AlexNetoGeo</div><div><a href="http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com">http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com</a></div><a href="http://gisunchained.wordpress.com">http://gisunchained.wordpress.com</a><br></div></div>