[QGIS-Developer] [Qgis-psc] QGIS LTR releases -- is it time to pull the plug?
C Hamilton
adenaculture at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 06:37:14 PST 2021
Hi Everyone,
For the US Federal government, we normally use the LTR version and IT does
not like us updating more than about twice a year. There are a few of us
such as myself who are testing and trying out the new features so we
install the latest version. For the LTR version we usually install around
3.x.8 and then around the end before the next version bump. It is very
important that the LTR version remains stable because if not it adds fuel
to those who only want a certain vendor as a reason to not use QGIS.
Analysts are also not happy if the software crashes and they lose their
work. We try to keep them happy. When it is getting time to update our
versions of QGIS, I usually wait two or three week after a release before I
recommend the new version. This helps to avoid problems like this. I also
never have 3.x.0 versions for the latest QGIS installed for this same
reason. I want to make sure there is some stability.
We normally only use the stand alone versions of the software - not the
network installer.
Anyway the LTR is important but it should only be updated with bug fixes.
The dependent libraries shouldn't be updated unless there is a bug in the
library. We do not need monthly updates to the software, but others may
want those monthly updates in case they are affected by some bug.
Thank you for all you do for the QGIS community!
Calvin
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 7:10 AM Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net> wrote:
> 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
> ItOpen: www.itopen.it
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing listQGIS-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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20211116/3777cf01/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the QGIS-Developer
mailing list