[QGIS-Developer] [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

[Filipe Dias]

Hi,

After QGIS 2.18 reaches EOL are there any plans to keep it available in a
repository or via flatpak/snap app? I have moved to QGIS 3 but I still have
to maintain QGIS 2.18 projects that are connected to Lizmap. Currently, I
switch back and forth between versions using the official repositories, but
once 2.18 reaches EOL, I'm guessing that will no longer be possible.

Cheers
F

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:46 AM Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it>
wrote:

> Hi Nyall, others
>
> On 27/12/18 22:58, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From another standpoint, we still have 102 Q3 regressions:
> >> https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?query_id=27
> >> From a quick scroll, I suspect at least some of them are not
> >> particularly relevant, but a thorough analysis is needed.
> >
> > Yeah, a quick flick through revealed a very mixed lot -- many sound
> > familiar and likely have already been fixed, some I know are still
> > outstanding, and many waiting feedback for too long and should be just
> > closed.
>
> I think a triaging would be useful here to have a more accurate picture.
> Anyone willing to do it and report back?
> >
> > I guess my question is (if we do delay the 2.x EOL as a result of
> > these) is how many regressions are "acceptable" before EOL? We'll
> > never get this to 0 -- there's been too many "by design" changes to
> > make a zero regression target feasible (See obligatory xkcd ref:
> > https://xkcd.com/1172/).
> >
> >> I'm not sure whether it will be acceptable for our users to release an
> >> LTR with these regression, but this could be a way of putting pressure
> >> on donors to help us fix them.
> >
> > Big +1 to this. If I'm being blunt, I think if a bug is a blocker to
> > an organisation moving to 3.4, it's ultimately going to sit with them
> > to get it fixed (or to sponsor QGIS and support the funded bug hunts).
> > (Or, perhaps, in the case of regressions in features an organisation
> > originally funded -- it's their responsibility to put pressure on the
> > original developer they paid for the feature to fix it and protect it
> > with suitable unit tests -- but that's between them and their original
> > developer).
>
> Agreed. It's a matter of communicating properly to users. We have time
> to write a blog post and circulating it well before EOL.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
> QGIS.ORG Chair:
> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20181228/5009a630/attachment-0001.html>