[Qgis-developer] 3.0 Documentation and branching
Alexandre Neto
senhor.neto at gmail.com
Sat Mar 4 03:00:51 PST 2017
Hi Mathias,
I am aware that there's no longer two master branches for QGIS. If I
recall, this approach was used while there was some indefinition about the
next releases. And master_2 was put to sleep as soon as possible, because
it was a burden to maintain.
For that reason I would prefer branching 2.18 documentation with backport
fixes. But I think there might be some implications with the transitions.
Anyway, I would just like to have a way to contribute to QGIS 3.0
documentation.
A sex, 3/03/2017, 17:21, Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> escreveu:
> Hi Alexandre
>
> On 03/03/2017 05:46 PM, Alexandre Neto wrote:
> > 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
>
> There is only one master branch at the moment (master_2 was sent to the
> happy hunting grounds a couple of months ago).
>
> So if the decision is to work on two branches in parallel, better work
> on release-2_18 and master.
>
> If you have an eye on the qgis/release-2_18 branch and compare it to the
> commits on documentation/master, I think backporting might indeed be
> worth a try.
>
> But remember, that I've got no idea about your workflows ;)
>
> Matthias
>
> > 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 <mailto: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
> > <mailto:delazj at gmail.com>> escreveu:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2017-02-22 0:38 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Neto <senhor.neto at gmail.com
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-developer mailing list
> > Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
--
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/20170304/5acc0729/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Qgis-developer
mailing list