[Qgis-developer] Release schedule discussion - again
madmanwoo at gmail.com
Tue Oct 13 04:34:28 PDT 2015
I think I would just like to add to this that no matter what we do there is
always going to be someone/some company that doesn't like the process. No
release process is perfect and is part of the game of software development.
We can adjust if required but I suspect it will be raised again in the
Features, etc are also not 100% guaranteed to get into a release just
because a PR is open before the release. Somethings are simply not ready
to be included or need more reviews. Switching to a 6 month or 12 month
cycle doesn't change this fact as something can still be held past the
IMO the most important thing is consistency in what we do so it's
predictable for people be that 4,6, 12 month cycle.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Régis Haubourg <
regis.haubourg at eau-adour-garonne.fr> wrote:
> Sandro Santilli-2 wrote
> >> My plea to sponsors:
> >> If you're funding QGIS development work and the contract doesn't
> >> mention something like "we will totally soak this work in unit tests"
> >> then rip up the contract and run. (Or ask them nicely to revise the
> >> contract to include this ;) ) If you're funding work and it's not
> >> being accompanied by unit tests then you aren't getting what you paid
> >> for, and you'll be forever forced to test your funded features in
> >> every new release manually for regressions...
> > +FF
> > --strk;
> I'm not a sponsor since there is now legal way for me to sponsor you by
> QGIS project still does not gather all financial ressources that are
> possible there. Maybe a discussion on paying Open Source licence for
> Enterprise users who wish to contribute could be a workaround?
> However, I have included Unit tests in all the new features or plugins I
> funded. Yesterday, my plugin broke twice because of an API change. Should
> also push plugin unit tests to Travis?
> Unit tests will never be sufficient for such large and GUI tool like QGIS,
> relying on so much different libraries. We need to reinforce that, but not
> misconsidering how much user test are critical is a mistake.
> Loosing advanced users for testing, especially in by corps, is not wise.
> When Paolo says that such big enterprises should be able to put some money
> for more tests, you are quite wrong for public corps I think.
> - Geo informatics are still misunderstood by decision makers, except for
> those who are in the field of geospatial. We are often only 1 or 2 to
> maintain, deploy, teach, fund QGIS, and maintain Postgis, web servers,
> metadata catalog, Talend Jobs to feed all that with data. Open Source
> revolution gave us tools that offered us more possibilities, less
> administrative charges, and allowed uses to explode literally. That does
> make our employer prone to hire more persons.
> - Some of us do that time to try to move forward with tools, maybe 10% max
> of us. I push a lot in QGIS, when my job is to handle data, not softwares.
> That worked, user are happy, so I gained new credits (more than in Mapinfo
> era !). But now, I can't have enough time to spend it correctly. When I do,
> my features are postponed by lack of QGIS resources. We are not on a good
> way, please here that. LTR or not is not at stake here.
> I keep on trying to push new use cases, and polish every day's tools, but
> that's a bit hard from here. I try to publish roadmaps before contracts,
> very few answers from PSC on that. Could PSC offer a workspace where we
> share the future, and give feedback and set priorities on all those tasks?
> If that place exists, is used and QEP's are always done, I think we can
> handle fast releases, because like Mozilla, we plan a bit what is coming.
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Qgis-developer