[Qgis-developer] Merging of incompatible changes

[Mathieu Pellerin]

In the region I'm working in (Southeast Asia), QuantumGIS' adoption rate is
quickly rising, in big part due to fact that ArcGIS doesn't properly
support UTF-8.

Keeping these new adopters passionate about QGIS - as well as increasing
user base - with an healthy release cycle is IMO really important. There
are so many good new features that have been pushing into 1.9, kind of
hurts to think it won't be available to a larger crowd until mid 2013.

One way forward would be to put official 2.0 milestones out. For e.g.,
before merging the threading work, it might be good to release a QGIS 2.0
beta 1 to the public. There are net advantages in doing so:
- Prevents long period of inactivity in-between official release for those
who do not want to work with nightly builds
- By making a more accessible development build (i.e. more people will
download a standalone "beta" installer than a nightly build), you'll get
more feedback and users testing the code
- Easing pressure of releasing a new QGIS version, giving more time for dev
plans

QGIS would go from two to three flavors: i) official version, ii) beta
version, iii) day-to-day dev build.

Math

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:52 PM, haubourg <
regis.haubourg at eau-adour-garonne.fr> wrote:

> Hi All,
> As Martin asked, could we know more about 2.0 roadmap planning and feature
> list?
> My concern is that we deployed QGIS in prod for 300 users, but we still
> miss
> some bugfixes and features to definitly switch. As long as I maintain two
> GIS solutions, I have double work, and I can't dedicate more time to QGIS.
> I would like to support prioritary issues before feature freeze. In the
> other hand, I can't wait until end of 2013 to fix 1.8 issues (raster print
> KO.. for example). We also just supported, with others of you, great tools
> like Atlas.. If a stable version with it is not released within a year,
> users will start to get annoyed, and will tend to use master for production
> use.. which is not a good target for any of us.
>
> So what is the community plan?
> What should we do as users and sponsors?  Should we ask (and support) a 1.8
> bugfix release if 2.0 target moves again? Should we support a 1.9 release
> for 2013 spring, and let major API changes for 2.0 be planned to end of
> 2013?  Does community have enough ressources to release a 1.9?
>
> Please tell us, we love QGIS and its community.. but we also like very much
> stability and visibility (and the captive users in my corp' too)
> Régis
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/Merging-of-incompatible-changes-tp5010325p5010839.html
> Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20121025/33ee5b3f/attachment.html>