[QGIS-Developer] PROPOSAL: change how we manage the 3.0 release process

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi,

On 11/06/2017 01:53 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>
> Well - in my opinion, if we delay the feature freeze we also have to
> delay the release.
>
> QGIS 3 still crashes several times a day (esp. if you work with
> editing, complex forms and PostgreSQL transaction mode).
>
QGIS 3 is still not even released while 2.18 received more path releases
than any QGIS release before (except for 2.14). QGIS 2.99 is probably
more stable already now than QGIS 2.18.0 has been.

> QGIS 3 is way more unstable than QGIS 2.18. We need at least 1.5
> months, better 2 months between feature freeze and release. If we move
> feature freeze, say, until end of November, we can't release in
> December or we would loose the good reputation that QGIS built in the
> last couple of years.
>
I would prefer to keep feature freeze in place and only discuss for what
we need exemptions. At the same time we can already improve the quality
of the release and perform bugfixing. Based on the aforementioned
discussion we can decide how much time we need.

> That is just my personal opinion. I use QGIS 3 a lot - and it is not a
> pleasant piece of software currently, but a major source of headaches
> and grief, not because of UI or missing features, but because of all
> the crashes I often experience (and are often hard to reproduce and
> report).
>
Can you point me towards the issue reports with the information from the
crash dialog?

Thanks
Matthias

> Andreas
>
> On 2017-11-06 13:17, Mathieu Pellerin wrote:
>
>> Hmm we just jumped from discussing feature freeze exception to
>> delaying release, is that correct?
>>  
>> Personally, I'm big +1 for feature freeze exceptions-only *if*
>> release date remains achievable. If not, it seems there is a
>> consensus on adding additional time to this dev cycle, which remains
>> preferable to shipping 3.0 with crucial architectural changes and
>> additions missing.
>>  
>> That said I'm a -1 to go into a "release whenever it's ready" mode
>> without a firm agreed upon (delayed) release date.
>>  
>> M
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2017 6:59 PM, "Andreas Neumann" <a.neumann at carto.net
>> <mailto:a.neumann at carto.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     It would be nice if the core devs could agree on items that need
>>     to go into 3.0 before feature freeze - so we don't have to delay
>>     longer than necessary.
>>
>>     The other question is how to deal with features that could also
>>     be done in 3.2. Can they also go into 3.0 if they are ready
>>     before the feature freeze? In other words: do we already have a
>>     feature freeze but allow exceptions where core devs agree on? Or
>>     will the whole feature freeze be delayed?
>>
>>     Andreas
>>
>>     On 2017-11-06 12:23, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Jürgen,
>>
>>
>>         On 11/06/2017 11:17 AM, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
>>
>>             Hi Matthias,
>>
>>             On Mon, 06. Nov 2017 at 11:00:04 +0100, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>>
>>                 Instead I would like the PSC to discuss a flexible handling of this
>>                 particular major release with the very specific requirements.
>>
>>             The "release when ready" policy was made for 3.0 and only for 3.0.  The plan is
>>             to return to the original way of doing release afterwards.
>>
>>             That would have been my preference anyway and returning to it is ok with me.
>>
>>
>>         Nice, looks like everyone agrees.
>>         Can we schedule a release-plan meeting with involved devs to
>>         discuss if/when it's ready?
>>
>>         Thanks a lot
>>         Matthias
>>
>>             Although IIRC the move to a fixed date was made because others argued that they
>>             need to communicate a date to their customers.
>>
>>
>>             Jürgen
>>
>>
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>             QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>             <mailto:QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>>             List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>             <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer>
>>             Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>             <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>         QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>         <mailto:QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>>         List info:
>>         https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>         <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer>
>>         Unsubscribe:
>>         https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>         <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>     QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>     <mailto:QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>>     List info:
>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer>
>>     Unsubscribe:
>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20171106/a9e71884/attachment-0001.html>