[Qgis-developer] Release schedule discussion - again

Tom Chadwin tom.chadwin at nnpa.org.uk
Mon Oct 12 16:14:37 PDT 2015

As I said before, it's +1 from me to slow down

If the devs need more end users to test, then changing to a release every
six months, LTR every two years, would help. However, how would the devs
feel about patching LTRs for twice the duration they do now, and for one
extra non-LTR in between each? To me it sounds like significantly more work
to keep backporting for two years instead of one. 

I don't think the Ubuntu comparison holds (in ignorance) because I presume
they have many, many more end users who test.

I go back to my own experience. I'm part of a partnership of 15
organizations, several of whom have switched to QGIS, with more on the way.
I believe that what holds organizations like ours back from migrating is a
perceived lack of robustness - as witnessed by the 2.8 and 2.10 immediate
patches - and lack of documentation, for which I know there is an ongoing
effort to improve. 

Another angle: we commissioned a QGIS plugin we needed before we could
migrate to QGIS. It would cost us less if we only had to get that updated
every two years to be compatible with an LTR, rather than every year.  

View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Release-schedule-discussion-again-tp5229448p5229581.html
Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list