<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Tim<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/06/2017 01:57 PM, Tim Sutton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D6CAE034-D1B6-4302-BCC5-F5DC1BD558B1@kartoza.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Hi<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 06 Nov 2017, at 12:00, Matthias Kuhn <<a
href="mailto:matthias@opengis.ch" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">matthias@opengis.ch</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class="">Hi Tim,</p>
<p class="">Thanks for raising this, I think it's very
important to have everyone on board and especially have
Jürgen as Release Manager agree on the plan.</p>
<p class="">For what I think, the 3.0 release is a very
special release since we have the unique possibility to
work on the API and to some degree on workflows.
Actually this is in my opinion not only a possibility
but an obligation as we will severely disappoint plugin
developers and users if we break things again in the
near future.</p>
<p class="">The calls for exemption that we have now are
mostly backed up with the argument that right now is the
right time to do certain things. This argument can not
be repeated for future 3.x releases. I would therefore
propose not to discuss the fixed release schedule in
general, it has IMO worked out quite nicely. Instead I
would like the PSC to discuss a flexible handling of
this particular major release with the very specific
requirements.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Thanks for your reply Matthias. Sorry I was unclear - 100%
agreed that we should see the regular 4 month release cycle in
place - I intended ‘release when it’s ready’ to apply only to
QGIS 3.0. We basically go into a mode where we are in ‘soft
freeze’ - where there should be agreement before merging PR’s
and when we agree (e.g. by monthly vote) that all exceptions
are done, we enter a formal freeze. </div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Tim, that sounds like a good path forward. To avoid being in
this state for too long I'd prefer to go for 2 weeks instead of a
month and agree beforehand on what needs to be done. This way we
also have a clear list of criteria for decision making.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Matthias<br>
</body>
</html>