[Qgis-developer] Release Today 23h59 GMT

Maciej Sieczka tutey at o2.pl
Fri Dec 29 06:28:26 EST 2006

Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Your position may be correct, but:
> - the "Must fix" label does not have meaning in this context - please
> remove it from the trac
> - at least critical bugs should be fixed, otherwise what is the meaning
> of "critical"?

Maybe Paolo's statement is quite radical, but I second him. Either-or.

> - what is the position of the release team about maintaining 0.8? I
> imagine most developer will move to the (much more exciting) 0.9 svn,
> and bugs in 0.8 may simply stay as such until 0.9 release

... which will have it's own bunch of critical bugs due to new
features, thus the average stability of QGIS might remain not good
enough for deadline-driven usage.

I'm affraid the scenario suggested by Paolo is not that unlikely. I
realise how unconvenient it actually is to maintain 2 or more branches,
doubling your work for having to backport changes between them. Thus
the 0.8 branch is likely to be soon given up and all the effort moved
into 0.9. So 0.8 might remain unstable forever.

> (hopefully much faster than the current one, BTW!).
> QGIS is already used in a variety of professional environments, and
> these are delicate issues, as you can realize.

A valid point. How can I ask my colleagues to use software which I know
is not stable, and take the responsibility for delays and problems in
their proffessional work? Moreover, once they try QGIS which crashes on
them, they'll quit it and will not be that keen to try it again in
future. The first user's approach should be successful for QGIS to take
over on "other software". And the more successful take overs, the more
users, developers and sponsors.

Please don't get me wrong. I've been using QGIS and I'm gratefull for
it. I hope QGIS community recognizes my (humble) contributions too. I'm
only wishing QGIS all best, and I believe an unstable release is not
good for QGIS.


More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list