[Qgis-developer] Failing tests consider blockers

Radim Blazek radim.blazek at gmail.com
Wed Feb 19 05:38:33 PST 2014

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Marco Hugentobler
<marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch> wrote:
> Hi
> I'm voting for releasing in time as is.
> We had that discussion prior to each release before. It turned out that
> after shifting the release date, new must-fix bugs showed up and the release
> was shifted over and over again.
> With a fixed release schedule, it is no problem to wait for the next release
> with bugfixes and features, because the next release comes within a few
> months.

With QGIS permanently broken and always waiting for next release which
will bring me new bugs.


> If releases are delayed, people cannot rely on a next release coming
> after four months.
> Regards,
> Marco
> On 19.02.2014 11:33, Radim Blazek wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jürgen E. <jef at norbit.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Radim,
>>> On Wed, 19. Feb 2014 at 09:14:43 +0100, Radim Blazek wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Jürgen E. <jef at norbit.de> wrote:
>>>>> What I wanted to say is that there are a bunch of tests that fail
>>>>> because
>>>>> they are not up to date or fail for other reasons that are not related
>>>>> to
>>>>> actual bugs in qgis itself. For example render tests, which fail
>>>>> because of
>>>>> fonts or other differences (eg. removed renderers).  I think that are
>>>>> the
>>>>> majority of tests that currently fail.
>>>> Platform dependent tests (fonts) don't make sense for me and should be
>>>> disabled until get fixed (e.g. using font set shipped with QGIS).
>>>> Renderer
>>>> test should be updated and only real bugs will remain and those should
>>>> be
>>>> blockers, I think.
>>> Well, there are platform dependant bugs and therefore there also could be
>>> platform dependant tests.  But those would need to be clearly marked as
>>> such
>>> and only run on the corresponding platform.
>>> Do we need to discuss that failing tests - or any other bug - should be
>>> fixed?
>>> I doubt that we do.
>>> I'm just objecting to planing ahead too much
>> Exactly, so why to insist exactly on release day planned 3 months ago?
>>> - let's first fix the tests and then decide further steps.
>> That won't work, we must be forced to fix them.
>>>>> Another thing is that we don't have the concept of actual blockers
>>>>> anymore.
>>>>> We release every four months what we have at that point.  Blockers are
>>>>> just
>>>>> highest priority for bugs.
>>>> Blockers do not block stable release?! I don't think anything like that
>>>> was
>>>> ever explicitly said nor there is a general consensus about that. I read
>>>> your
>>>> release plan again and I only found:
>>> We just have releases.  The plan is to release what we have on release
>>> day.  Of
>>> course that should be in the best possible shape, but whatever we do it
>>> will
>>> have known und unknown bugs.
>> Whatever we do it will have unknown bugs but does not have to have known
>> bugs.
>> I am strongly against releasing with known blockers.
>> Radim
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-developer mailing list
>> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> --
> Dr. Marco Hugentobler
> Sourcepole -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
> Weberstrasse 5, CH-8004 Zürich, Switzerland
> marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch http://www.sourcepole.ch
> Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list