[Qgis-developer] Stability (2.8 LTS) vs development (3.0), a proposed way forward

[Mathieu Pellerin]

Anita,

Thanks for pointing out QEP#4, I wasn't aware of it. Tim has done an
impressive work there.

The above-mentioned QEP is a long term thing, what I was suggesting is a
very short term (i.e. 2 cycles) proposal to try and satisfy the current
needs for stability and devlopment momentum. I also am familiar with the
discussion surrounding the 4 month cycle dates having been carefully
chosen, hence why I was thinking that redistributing weeks within the
context of two cycles wouldn't break that on the long term (i.e., by the
end of the proposed two cycles, we're still 8 months from now, etc.)

Math


On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Anita Graser <anitagraser at gmx.at> wrote:

> Are you aware of QEP3? Please read Tim's suggestion. There are good
> reasons for this stable 4 month cycle at exactly the current release times
> of the year.
>
> Best wishes
> Anita
> On Nov 10, 2014 5:57 AM, "Geo DrinX" <geodrinx at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes yes yes.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> but also +999     :)
>>
>>
>> Roberto
>>
>> 2014-11-10 2:27 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Pellerin <nirvn.asia at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> The recent thread Nyall kick-started with his  “QGIS 3.0?” email got me
>>> to think about the eternal stability vs. development dilemma it
>>> (re-)exposed through the conversation.
>>>
>>> More specifically, it got me to brainstorm on the best way forward for
>>> QGIS at this juncture and whether there's a way to accommodate both the
>>> folks calling for a 2.8 LTS version, and others in need for space to
>>> further develop and expand QGIS' capability.
>>>
>>> And, I might just have found a way to do so. Here's the proposal, in a
>>> couple of points:
>>>
>>> - We make the 2.8 development cycle “fix and refinement”-only, and
>>> reduce the cycle's length to 6 to 8 weeks;
>>> - The reduced cycle will help everyone's focus on the above goal;
>>> - We append the freed 8-10 weeks to the subsequent development cycle,
>>> which would become QGIS 3.0;
>>> - The expanded cycle will help give space to develop some of the
>>> exciting features being cooked by developers (Nyall's Layouts, Marco's
>>> Geometry redesign, etc.) and bulletproof those.
>>>
>>> This, IMHO, caters to both groups demanding stability and space for
>>> development. It doesn't discourage or delay too much the grand scheme
>>> changes, and pushes out a 2.8 version focused on stability through a
>>> shorter cycle focusing on delivering a perfected tool.
>>>
>>> The above proposal does require a momentary lapse of the nice 4-month
>>> release cycle rhythm which the QGIS has successfully maintained for three
>>> releases now. But, it might actually be what's needed at this very time.
>>> Plus, the length of the two cycles stays the same, 8 months.
>>>
>>> Comments? I'm obviously particularly interested in what Jürgen has to
>>> say :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Math
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-developer mailing list
>>> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141110/a4491139/attachment.html>