[QGIS-Developer] Explicit policy re bug fixing responsibilities after new features
Andreas Neumann
a.neumann at carto.net
Wed Mar 11 02:26:23 PDT 2020
Hi,
In general, I agree with Nyalls proposal. As a customer or user of QGIS
who wants stability, this is a good thing.
But like Larry, I think we should be careful and not ask a dev to be
responsible for a new feature during his lifetime ;-) ( I know this is
exaggerating ). Let's limit the responsibility until the release of the
next LTR version. I think that would be a compromise that protects both
the customer, the developer and QGIS.ORG.
And, as the treasurer, I think it is totally ok, if the general QGIS.ORG
funds are also used for bug fixing of features paid by someone else.
After all, the customer and developer did their contribution which
benefited all other QGIS users. Now, all the other QGIS users can
contribute to the maintenance, esp. if they don't pay for feature
development.
As a consequence of this proposal, devs should raise the hours budgeted
for a new feature and as a consequence the price for the customer.
Greetings,
Andreas
Am 11.03.20 um 04:30 schrieb Larry Shaffer:
> Hi Nyall, et al.,
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com
> <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 03:31, Alessandro Pasotti
> <apasotti at gmail.com <mailto:apasotti at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I've always felt it was an implicit agreement, but I totally agree
> > that making it explicit is a good idea.
>
> Yep, it's been more or less "understood" practice for some time, but
> I'd like it to be official so there's no room for misunderstand.
>
> > Where exactly would you suggest to add that kind of statements?
>
> I'd put it in a new section under
> https://docs.qgis.org/testing/en/docs/developers_guide/ Maybe
> something like "development policies"?
>
> We could word it something like:
>
> "While new feature submissions are always highly appreciated, every
> feature added to QGIS comes with an associated maintenance burden for
> the project. Accordingly, some policies exist to avoid placing this
> burden on the existing QGIS development team:
> - Following any new feature development, it is the original
> developer's (or organisations) SOLE responsibility to proactively
> monitor and implement bug fixes relating to the new feature (or
> regressions to other parts of QGIS which have resulted from its
> development). This extends up to the next major QGIS release following
> the feature being merged*. It is NOT acceptable to use QGIS.org
> sponsored bug fixing efforts to implement these fixes. Failure to
> provide fixes to all reasonable bug reports raised for a
> new feature may lead to that feature being reverted prior to release.
>
>
> Need some clarification on some particulars related to versioning and
> releases...
>
> Do you mean minor instead of major releases? You speak of reverting a
> feature prior to a *major* release, but features are introduced on
> master prior to every 4-month (minor or major) release, as indicated
> by your footnote for 3.14.
>
> If you do mean major, then this could be quite some time and possibly
> unequal per author, e.g. one feature introduced in 3.0.0 needs
> supported until 4.0.0, while another in 3.14.0 has a much shorter
> support cycle to reach 4.0.0.
>
> Regardless, I suggest scheduling the expected new feature support
> relative to the public release *cadence*, regardless of release version.
>
> Instead of...
>
> This extends up to the next major QGIS release following
> the feature being merged*.
>
>
> Maybe something like...
>
> "This extends from when the feature is merged into a development
> branch until its public QGIS release containing the feature."
>
>
> Also ...
>
> - After this major release, the developer is still expected to monitor
> the bug tracker for issues relating to their work and implement
> reasonable fixes at their own expense.
> "
>
>
> Like... forever? What about the *value* of their contribution to the
> project itself? Something highly variable and relative, even for core
> features. And what about later, when the feature is stable, but needs
> refactored to meet other changes in the codebase? Does that then
> constitute a 'bug'?
>
> Maybe instead:
>
> "After the first public QGIS release containing the feature and until
> the next public release (or whatever interval is agreed upon), the
> developer is still expected to monitor the bug tracker for issues
> relating to their work and implement reasonable fixes at their own
> expense."
>
> I'd be hard pressed to convince any funding backers that they need to
> pay me to develop a feature and financially support it in perpetuity,
> especially if the feature also benefits the project/app and its users.
> However, it seems reasonable to say to a customer "and you also need
> to support the fixing of this feature's bugs found by the public until
> the following public release."
>
> I'm all for accountability in code maintenance, but there has to be a
> limit. Otherwise, contributions may become viewed as indentured servitude.
>
> Regards,
>
> Larry Shaffer
> Dakota Cartography
> Black Hills, South Dakota
>
> Nyall
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alessandro Pasotti
> > w3: www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20200311/f38fce1e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the QGIS-Developer
mailing list