[Qgis-developer] Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

[Worth Lutz]

But as a FINAL 2.x release it would make sense to be a LTR, wouldn't 
it.  To give time before moving to 3.x.

*Worth Lutz*


On 1/20/2016 4:28 AM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> Just an idea: what about a 2.16 being an LTR rather than the 2.14 ?
> Counter-argument. This breaks the only newly established LTR release cycle
> which is cited as very attractive to corporate users.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Help-us-plan-for-QGIS-3-0-tp5245740p5246247.html
> Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20160120/f49db5c8/attachment.html>