<div dir="ltr"><div>> This mostly affects the small number
      of developers who do the job of reviewing pull requests, just
      before the release they have the double burden of finalizing their
      own pull requests and reviewing other pull requests which tend to
      land also just a couple of days/hours before freeze <br></div><div><br></div><div>That's why I said we can't refuse you anything BTW :)</div><div><br></div><div>> I would propose
      to raise a motion after the release of 3.4 so we can review and
      discuss them with enough time for everyone to raise their voice.
      Does that work for you?</div><div><br></div><div>Perfect!</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 10:06, Matthias Kuhn <<a href="mailto:matthias@opengis.ch">matthias@opengis.ch</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Hi Régis,</p>
    <p>I see the point, thanks for raising this. The source of the
      freeze exemption is that last-minute pull requests were merged
      without much review just to get it in. In the end, this often
      resulted in worse code quality because no in-depth review had been
      done and only issues that surfaced and were connected to a given
      PR would actually be fixed. This mostly affects the small number
      of developers who do the job of reviewing pull requests, just
      before the release they have the double burden of finalizing their
      own pull requests and reviewing other pull requests which tend to
      land also just a couple of days/hours before freeze. The exemption
      on request for a selection of PRs with good reasoning is an
      approach to tackle this dilemma, which so far (to my knowledge)
      was not under a broader discussion which I interpreted as silent
      agreement.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Alternatives to this approach exist, so if this is deemed a
      problem and different approaches are on the table, I would propose
      to raise a motion after the release of 3.4 so we can review and
      discuss them with enough time for everyone to raise their voice.
      Does that work for you?<br>
    </p>
    <p>Best regards<br>
      Matthias<br>
    </p>
    <div class="m_1196772155734071387moz-cite-prefix">On 09/06/2018 07:30 PM, Régis Haubourg
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>Well, my point is that in exceptional cases, that could be
          of course discussed, but not at every release. </div>
        <div>Régis<br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div dir="ltr">Le jeu. 6 sept. 2018 à 18:38, Paolo Cavallini
          <<a href="mailto:cavallini@faunalia.it" target="_blank">cavallini@faunalia.it</a>> a
          écrit :<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          <div>Hi Regis,<br>
            so in short your proposal is no exemption?<br>
            All the best.<br>
            <br>
            <div class="gmail_quote">Il 6 settembre 2018 18:21:29 CEST,
              "Régis Haubourg" <<a href="mailto:regis.haubourg@gmail.com" target="_blank">regis.haubourg@gmail.com</a>>
              ha scritto:
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div>Hi all, <br>
                  </div>
                  <div>maybe from a voter point of view, this is
                    uncomfortable to vote for last minute exemptions, as
                    this does not have such sense from a democratic
                    perspective. <br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Voting is essential on strategic issues, but
                    voting on "do you want this now, or within 4 months"
                    may not appear so important - except if you funded
                    the feature yourself. <br>
                  </div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>As a user, I'd really want the two mentioned
                    features for the next LTR, I've wanted them for so
                    long. But in the other hand, I think we should
                    really not end into a systematic feature freeze
                    exemption process. <br>
                  </div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>I know QGIS is a do-ocraty, and we owe so much to
                    our top contributors that we can't refuse them
                    anything, hum... professionally speaking I mean:-)</div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>However having work still going on while in
                    feature freeze does not help in dedicating fully to
                    bugfixing and testing.</div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Last point, some teams have been rescheduling
                    hard and sometimes canceling deserved vacations to
                    respect feature freeze deadline. Just to be clear,
                    this doesn't concern Oslandia this time, but this
                    happened in the past.<br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Seen from this perspective, I'd like we don't
                    repeat this at every release. Customer usually can
                    wait for 4 months more. <br>
                  </div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Regards, <br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Régis<br>
                  </div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <br>
                <div class="gmail_quote">
                  <div dir="ltr">Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 09:13, Matthias
                    Kuhn <<a href="mailto:matthias@opengis.ch" target="_blank">matthias@opengis.ch</a>>
                    a écrit :<br>
                  </div>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks
                    Paolo<br>
                    <br>
                    On 09/05/2018 09:02 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:<br>
                    > Hi Matthias<br>
                    ><br>
                    ><br>
                    > Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha
                    scritto:<br>
                    >> I think the approach to let voting members
                    decide as we did last time<br>
                    >> (<a href="https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions</a>)
                    works fine.<br>
                    >><br>
                    >>  * This committee includes several
                    technical members<br>
                    >>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based
                    on self-evaluation of knowledge<br>
                    > it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be
                    particularly stressed in<br>
                    > the voting question, otherwise people will feel
                    obliged to vote (which<br>
                    > often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the
                    implication.<br>
                    <br>
                    Yes, we can state that explicitly.<br>
                    <br>
                    In the past, e.g. here<br>
                    <a href="https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized</a>
                    we had<br>
                    33% participation. Not sure what the reason for
                    abstaining was, one<br>
                    assumption would be that many did not feel
                    comfortable enough to make a<br>
                    decision. Or pure lazyness or disinterest ;P<br>
                    <br>
                    Regards<br>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    _______________________________________________<br>
                    QGIS-Developer mailing list<br>
                    <a href="mailto:QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                    List info: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br>
                    Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a></blockquote>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <br>
            -- <br>
            Sorry for being short</div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <div class="m_1196772155734071387moz-signature">-- <br>
      
      <div class="m_1196772155734071387moz-signature">
        
        <div class="m_1196772155734071387moz-signature"> <span style="text-align:left;color:#000000;font-family:'Verdana',sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Matthias Kuhn</span><br>
          <a href="mailto:matthias@opengis.ch" target="_blank"> <span style="text-align:left;color:#000000;font-family:'Verdana',sans-serif;font-size:8pt">matthias@opengis.ch</span>
          </a><br>
          <span style="text-align:left;color:#000000;font-family:'Verdana',sans-serif;font-size:8pt"><a href="tel:+41764356763" target="_blank">+41 (0)76 435 67 63</a></span><br>
          <div> <a href="http://www.opengis.ch" target="_blank"> <img src="cid:part11.214F6FC1.BC3BD672@opengis.ch" alt="OPENGIS.ch Logo" width="200" height="80"></a> </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>

</blockquote></div>