[Qgis-developer] Release plans

[Denis Rouzaud]

On 26.06.2014 16:07, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> [Take 25]
>
> On Thu, 26. Jun 2014 at 22:32:01 +1000, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>>>> No. Just like with 2.2.
>   
>> I think this is a real mistake and bad PR for the project.  If we want to
>> do it like this we need to refine out release plan better to have things
>> line up nice and smooth so people get what they expect.
> Why again a discussion on the last minute?  "The plans has been on display..."
>
> The road map tells users what to expect.  The announcement told users what to
> expect.   If they still expect something else, that's their choice.  But IMHO
> it's nothing that we need to take responsibility for.
>
> The current plan is easy. Just two dates: freeze and release.   development
> before the freeze, testing, fixing, translating, release preparations after the
> freeze, packaging and new the next development cycle starts in parallel after
> the release.
>
> I think that's easy enough even without a colorful layout.   Although the
> roadmap is hard to find on the website (but it's nowhere near alpha centauri).
>
>
>> The user isn't us, we can build from source, they can not, nor should they.
> BTW the users are free to build from source, that's their choice, too.  I think
> most of our users are pretty smart (and good looking) ;)
I would bet that most people building from sources are not the ones 
waiting for an announced release.

I agree with Nathan that it's a real bad idea to announce a release if 
people can't use it.
If packaging is done during the weekend, I don't see a real problem to 
wait two days before annoucement.
I would say that having the windows packages ready is a minimum before 
annoucement.

Although, I agree it's a pity that we discuss 1 day to annoucement.
This should be polished for next time, and I would vote for a more 
detailed calendar with
* Feature freeze
* String freeze
* Code + Translation freeze
* Packaging (at least win)
* Release

Cheers,

Denis


>
>
> Jürgen
>
>
> PS: "This must be Thursday" - and I put release on fridays intentionally to
>      have the weekend for packaging...
> PPS: I wanted to tackle #10703 instead of this - you could have done #10589 ;)
>