[Qgis-developer] 3.0 Documentation and branching
Alexandre Neto
senhor.neto at gmail.com
Sat Mar 4 11:01:43 PST 2017
Hi Yves,
Thanks for your input.
Would we really need a backport manager? I mean, each one of us can handle
the PR on master and the backporting PR to the 2.8 branch (with the review
of others ofc).
If we follow this strategy, are there any implications with the translation
work?
A sáb, 4/03/2017, 18:07, Yves Jacolin <yjacolin at free.fr> escreveu:
> Hello,
>
> First, sorry to be so quiet from so much time. Too much trip and tasks in
> my
> flat. Let' me write a resume of the discussion.
>
> There is two strategies in this thread:
>
> * Release Documentation for each QGIS release
> * Release Documentation for each LTR QGIS release
>
> About the first strategy: we can't manage this one as it needs a big
> documentation team that can work on new features when they come to QGIS doc
> repository and we need to finalize the previous missing releases. This is
> probably a long term target.
>
> About the second strategy: this is the easiest way to manage the
> documentation. But even here it's hard to document the previous feature
> except
> if we can find time and work hard to finalize it.
>
> Currently, we have the 2.14 LTR QGIS release and documentation. and we are
> working mainly on 2.16/2.18 features.
>
> Some developpers contribute to QGIS 3.0 documentation which means that we
> need
> to either:
> * switch to 3.0 for the documentation
> * create a 2.x branch and ask someone to backport from master to this
> branch
>
> The second possibility let's us release a 2.x documentation for the next
> QGIS
> LTR (2.18) but we need someone to take care backport.
>
> My proposition is to create this 2.x branch, work on master, add a label in
> our PR/commit to let's the bakccport manager which one he should work on.
> We
> can release a 2.18 release as soon as we finish to work on and focus on 3.x
> release.
>
> I would like to nominate Harrissou for this task ;) as he already manage
> such
> backport on 2.14 release, of course if he accept it!
>
> If this sounds good to everyone we can go ahead. Sorry if you already find
> a
> consensus, but reading the thread today, I can't find a clear one but I get
> some of your point of view and add it to my proposition. Harrissou, let's
> me
> know if my proposition give too much work!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Y.
>
>
>
> Le samedi 4 mars 2017, 11:00:51 CET Alexandre Neto a écrit :
> > 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-sched
> > > ule>
> > > > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170304/016ac7d8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Qgis-developer
mailing list