<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thank you Tim and Nathan<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/02/2016 10:09 AM, Tim Sutton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A50BEA72-A4F0-4E41-8873-C499F9B15635@qgis.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Hi
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 02 Feb 2016, at 00:51, Nathan Woodrow <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:madmanwoo@gmail.com"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:madmanwoo@gmail.com">madmanwoo@gmail.com</a></a>> wrote:</div>
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I feel parallel development, and on such a
big migration, will burn out any resources we already
have and 2.16 will be ignored anyway for most work.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">For me just having to switch between LTR
and non LTR for bug fixing is a pain let alone
versions with different APIs, different release plans,
different Python versions, etc</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I wholehartedly agree to this.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A50BEA72-A4F0-4E41-8873-C499F9B15635@qgis.org"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div>Anyway whether we go this route or another, it would be
good to try to harmonise our thoughts - I don’t think it is
great for the PSC to present a plan that only half of us agree
on / believe in. One way to do this is to try to bullet out
the individual high level requirements for a 3.0 release (e.g.
shift to python 3, shift to PyQt5) in a table and have a
column for each PSC member to agree or disagree with. That way
we can isolate the specific contention points and focus on
those. My feel is that most disagreement now lies with the
branching strategy we use. As Andreas mentioned cynically,
there has been a lot of flip flopping of positions so it is
kind of hard to get a good idea of where the consensus lies.
If anyone has a better idea of how to reach consensus, could
you let us know what it is, otherwise I will set up the
decision matrix that we can all put our agree/disagree notes
into. OK?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that expertise in this matter is at least as widespread
under core developers as under the PSC. Given that we do not yet
have a clear opinion from the PSC, I would appreciate to get a short
list of requirements from core developers concerning the transition
that can serve the PSC as guidelines in this decision.<br>
<br>
My main requirements are:<br>
<br>
* A bit of lead time (at least 4 months) before the last 2.x
release happens [1]<br>
* No dual branch strategy: at a given time all new features shall
be targetted at the same subsequent version [2]<br>
* More time for the 3.0 release [3]<br>
* 3.0 will not be an LTR [4]<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Matthias<br>
<br>
[1] OTOH, an extra 2.x release can be discussed based on experiences
down the road<br>
[2] See Nathans comment above<br>
[3] Proposal 8 months<br>
[4] 3.2 or 3.4, please announce early (i.e. before 3.0 release) as
"planned as LTR" and at 3.0 release re-evaluate and tag one as
"accepted LTR"<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthias Kuhn
OPENGIS.ch - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.opengis.ch">https://www.opengis.ch</a>
Spatial • (Q)GIS • PostGIS • Open Source</pre>
</body>
</html>