[QGIS-Developer] [Qgis-psc] QGIS LTR releases -- is it time to pull the plug?

Tue Nov 16 04:00:42 PST 2021

Hi all,

Thank you Bo for this extensive summary of reasons why we should keep 
the LTR version.

I can only second that - from the perspective of being employed at a 
public organization myself - and from the perspective of I believe the 
majority of the Swiss QGIS users. The LTR version is certainly a success 
in general and it is what most users want.

Let's rather fix the issues in the LTR release process rather than 
killing it off because we sometimes run into troubles with it.

We should also think about all the good things that the LTR version 
provided to the QGIS users (in general it brought a lot of stability and 
increased reliability). Shit happens sometimes (like now) - and from 
every problem we should take the opportunity to potentially improve our 
project.

Andreas

On 2021-11-16 12:00, Bo Victor Thomsen wrote:

> Hi all -
> 
> I have a few comments  regarding the possible removal of the "QGIS LTR 
> versions" ( as one of the original proponents for having a LTR version 
> ) :
> 
> * The LTR version is the version that almost _all_ QGIS-using 
> _organisations_ in Denmark is using. That means 40 - 50 % of all 
> municipalities, regions (counties) and a number of state departments. 
> And a lot of private companies too.  They use it mostly in conjunction 
> with some kind of "Web GIS" and have QGIS for the hard and complex 
> stuff. This market penetration is on par with ESRI and better than 
> MapInfo. As a treasurer of the QGIS Denmark User group I've registered 
> 85 Danish organisational members out of 260 members. And this number is 
> growing. So there is a large and growing number of QGIS users, that 
> prefer the  LTR version (actually the vast majority if you count the 
> individual users in the organisations) .
> The yearly fee from these organisational members is in large part the 
> reason why QGIS Denmark has a Gold sponsorship of QGIS.
> 
> I don't know about other countries, but I _guess, _that preferences in 
> organisations is roughly the same: They prefer stability and as few 
> errors as possible. And thirdly new glitzy features
> 
> * I we ditch the LTR versions,  I fear that an old nemesis will 
> resurface: That there is not _any _version of QGIS that is really 
> stable:  A small irritating bug in ver. x will be solved in ver. x+1. 
> However ver. x+1 contains another small irritating bug, that will be 
> solved in version x+2 ....
> 
> I know that the development process for QGIS has evolved tremendously 
> the last couple of years. However, I still remember the "bad old days" 
> with "no responsibility" for killing bugs in existing code caused by 
> introduction of new code.
> 
> * In my experience, the 1 - year period for LTR is the shortest period 
> acceptable for organisations. They don't want to repackage QGIS every 6 
> months and certainly not every 4 months. You might even let the period 
> be 1.5- 2 years instead of 1 year.
> 
> * The quagmire of ver. 3.16... Isn't it a combination of a relatively 
> old version of QGIS fine tuned to a set of support libraries, where the 
> support libraries gets upgraded "an masse" because OsGeo4W gets 
> upgraded from v1 to v2.; SIP gets upgraded from v4 to v6. And the proj 
> library goes through several upgrades from v4 to v8 ? I my perspective 
> that's a receipt for "The perfect storm". If it can't be fixed, then 
> freeze it at 3.16.11 and fast-promote ver. 3.22 as LTR, perhaps with a 
> big warning sign on it.
> This it not a critique of the upgrade process. Every piece of software, 
> including supporting libraries has to be upgraded from time to time. 
> However I count 3 major upgrades of libraries on the same time
> NB! Just read Jürgen's posting on ver. 3.16.14 being released on  
> friday. If it works, then that's solves the ver. 3.16 issues for me.
> 
> * I know, bug squashing is nobody's favourite programming discipline. 
> Especially if you not are paid for doing it. Hence the need for bug 
> squashin by payment. So what about trying to reach out to the large (or 
> small) sponsors and ask them if they could put some extra coins in the 
> pot earmarked for LTR ? I can't solely speak for QGIS Denmark User 
> group, but I would certainly discuss this problem with other members of 
> the board and eventually the general assembly. And we have some 
> contacts with the other QGIS usergroups i Scandinavia. The Swiss 
> usergroup could for example talk with the german usergroup (I know the 
> problem is not based on language, but sometimes it's easier to promote 
> an idea with people talking roughly the same language)
> 
> So how much money are we talking about ?
> 
> Whatever that's decided regarding the LTR, I personally still will be a 
> staunch supporter of QGIS. But please don't throw the baby out with the 
> bathwater without due consideration and without trying alternative 
> solutions.
> 
> Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
> 
> Bo Victor Thomsen
> 
> Den 16-11-2021 kl. 09:22 skrev Alessandro Pasotti:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:50 AM Marco Bernasocchi <marco at qgis.org> 
> wrote:
> Hi Anita, Hi Nyall, Hi All
> I think that it is a good idea to allocate the first half hour (and 
> more if needed) in tonight's budget meeting to this very pressing 
> subject.
> Nyall, thanks a lot for your analysis, we'll use it as discussion base.
> 
> I extended the meeting invitation from 18:00 to 19:30.
> 
> See you later
> Marco
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thinking about how to possibly prevent this to happen again I think 
> that the manual testing cycles as proposed with 
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2020-December/009186.html 
> could help in identifying biggest issues before a release.
> 
> I think we should consider the possibility of investing in that 
> direction.
> 
> Kind regards.
> --
> 
> Alessandro Pasotti
> QCooperative:  www.qcooperative.net [1] ItOpen:   www.itopen.it [2]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Links:
------
[1] https://www.qcooperative.net
[2] http://www.itopen.it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20211116/7d7f19db/attachment-0001.html>