[Qgis-developer] 3.0 Documentation and branching

[Alexandre Neto]

Hi all,

Sorry to come back to this thread. But, although it seems that we will have
a 2.18 documentation release, we are still blocking the documentation of
new features arriving to the QGIS 3.0 Branch. And there are tons of it.

So, could we adopt some strategy about this? Maybe two master branches if
necessary (as done for QGIS code). Or branch 2.18 documentation, work
normally in master and backport all functionalities that were missing?

Any opinions or ideas?

Thanks!

Alexandre Neto <senhor.neto at gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 22/02/2017
às 12:50:

> I can try. Although I don't have your eye for details. :-)
>
> A qua, 22/02/2017, 12:01, DelazJ <delazj at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2017-02-22 0:38 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Neto <senhor.neto at gmail.com>:
>
> According to the latest news, it seems that there will make sense to have
> a 2.18 Documentation release...
>
> Sorry for trying to "rush" it to 3.0. Or will it be 3.2?
>
> Anyway, I am going to put some effort in fixing 2.x issues in the user's
> manual.
>
> Like reviewing some of the pending pull requests? :)
> Thanks
>
> H.
>
> A qui, 9/02/2017, 09:39, DelazJ <delazj at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Hi,
>
> Alexandre, Thanks for the clarification. Indeed we need to hear people
> once for all on this (these) topic(s) and ensure any contribution is not
> rejected or discouraged. And I think making PR guarantee that a
> contribution is taken into account (we still have a queue shorter than QGIS
> repo's :) )
>
> Richard, I think it's more than clear that the next application release is
> 3.0 and the 2.x serie is behind us now. It's also clear that after 2.14,
> the next LTR will be 3.2. Btw, we need to update a bit
> http://qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/development/roadmap.html#release-schedule
> The 2.x vs 3.0 issue reports separation in Doc repo was at that time due
> to the hypothetic release of a QGIS 2.20 which would be a LTR hence would
> deserve a documentation (due to the rule "only LTRs are documented"). Now
> there will be no 2.20 and the next LTR is two releases away so, as Richard
> said "the main question is: do we decide to NOT release a newer
> documentation(!) 2.x branch anymore this year.?" In other words: Do we keep
> 2.x series documentation at 2.14 level, while there are 2.16 and 2.18
> releases that would surely be used for a while?
>
> That's all! And I'm fine with whatever (argumented) answer is made! if the
> answer is a categoric No :), let's pull 3.0 fixes
> If the answer is "Yes, we want to release a 2.18 documentation" (without
> translation of course), we can still begin working on 3.0 issues by
> creating a master_2 branch for 2.18 fixes and port fixes from a branch to
> another. It has been made with QGIS repo. I'm sure it 'd not be that hard
> to maintain. It's not like if we have codes, it's all about text (more
> understandable and cherry-pickable for me, anyway).
>
> Btw, given that we are in dev list, allow me to remind that in the thread
> in psc-list, there was a call for devs to help maintain and reinforce the
> backend of documentation.... you are welcome... Thanks
>
> Regards,
> Harrissou
>
> 2017-02-09 8:36 GMT+01:00 Richard Duivenvoorde <rdmailings at duif.net>:
>
> On 08-02-17 12:42, Alexandre Neto wrote:
> > My concerns are about this part:
> >
> > /"Then, afaict, a part of this commit is more about QGIS 3 changes and I
> > am not sure we are currently documenting QGIS3 stuffs (still waiting for
> > comments and decision in this thread
> > <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2017-January/005060.html>)."
> >
> > /
> > So, with my email, I just wanted to go back to the discussion of what
> > versions we are planning/want to release and have a decision. Also, make
> > sure that whatever the decision on that, we have a solution that does
> > not put a developer's (or anyone else) PR on hold (not merged) if they
> > want to contribute documentation for the current is master version.
> > Mainly because people's availability and motivation can be affected by
> that.
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> the main reason holding back 3.0 descriptions from master is to be able
> to release a (nowadays pretty theoretical?) new LTR in 2.x branch.
>
> This in case that waiting for a stable 3.x (plus a reasonable set of
> working python plugins!) would take too long, and the community would
> decide or ask for another 2.x release to be able to do their daily work
> with QGIS.
>
> IF we are more or less sure that there will NO MORE 2.x QGIS (LTR's?)
> anymore, we can decide to lift this clear 2.x - 3.x separation (thanks
> Harrissou for defending this :-) ).
>
> So the main question is: do we decide to NOT release a newer
> documentation(!) 2.x branch anymore this year.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Neto
> ---------------------
> @AlexNetoGeo
> http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com
> http://gisunchained.wordpress.com
>
> --
> Alexandre Neto
> ---------------------
> @AlexNetoGeo
> http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com
> http://gisunchained.wordpress.com
>
-- 
Alexandre Neto
---------------------
@AlexNetoGeo
http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com
http://gisunchained.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20170303/9cc6f1af/attachment.html>