[Qgis-developer] Managing a future 2.18 or 3.0 documentation?

[DelazJ]

Hi Yves,

2016-07-27 15:38 GMT+02:00 Yves Jacolin <yjacolin at free.fr>:

> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:21:18 DelazJ wrote:
> > Yves, with the API break due to 3.x releases, there are now two branches
> in
> > qgis/QGIS repository:
> > - master for 3.0 commits
> > - and master_2 for 2.18 commits (where there's no API break)
> > As already mentioned earlier in this thread, all fixes or new features in
> > master_2 are also present in master.
> Yes, I get it, no problem.
>
> > Then, with the automatic creation of issues in QGIS-Documentation repo,
> we
> > can get features from master as well as master_2 (examples in my latest
> > message). By default, they are labeled 3.0. All we need to do is
> (re)label
> > some of them according to the branch they belong to in QGIS repo (master
> > --> 3.0, master_2 --> 2.18).
> > For the doc writing, I think that as usual, we'll be tackling 2.16 issues
> > for the moment (as it's the released version) in doc master branch. One
> > release at a moment. The other releases are not concerned for the moment.
> So why do we need to split the ticket of the doc in two milestone? The
> topic
> of the thread is "Managing a future 2.18 or 3.0 documentation", so why do
> we
> talk about 2.16? :) Let's focus to 2.18/3.0.
>
> I mentioned 2.16 just because it's what we are working on now. And the
purpose of this discussion is : And then? What do we do after 2.16 issues
are all fixed?
And actually, as Andreas said earlier, when 2.18 is released and if it's
the last 2.x version, then I think it's more coherent to have a 2.18 doc
than a 2.16 doc.
If there is a need of a 2.x doc after 2.14 LTR, I think it should be for
the last release in 2.x. That means being able to identify 2.x commits from
3.x ones.

Spliting ticket in two milestone needs some work for the next 3-4 monthes, I
> am not against that you managed it ;) but I am wondering what is the final
> purpose of this work if at the end, we are only managing 3.0 release for
> the
> documentation.
>
> If we do not publish another 2.x doc, sure I'd have wasted my time (not so
much though). And afaics, it'd be the only harm. But what if 3.0 takes too
long and that 2.16 issues are meanwhile all documented?
Most of 2.18 features are likely commited in 3.0 meaning that documenting
those features is not a waste of time. All is done in a single master
(testing) branch so that work will benefit to a 3.x documentation.

Regards,
Harrissou

I just want to understand your point of view.
>
> Y.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20160728/43ecbe20/attachment.html>