[Qgis-psc] Releasing 2.0

[Otto Dassau]

Hi,

that sounds reasonable to me, too We should wait with the release a
bit longer and have the new vector api included, but also well tested in
2.0 then.

I also wonder, if it would make sense to push 2.0 even a little further into
the future and have a 1.9 release after merging the new_vector_api branch
in spring first. Then let people test and have a 'as stable as possible' 2.0
release after that (in summer). 

But maybe this is too late for other reasons? Anyway this would mean, people
have to wait longer for an official release. But maybe they can work
witht and test the nghtly build until then? 

Regards
Otto

Am Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:22:32 +0200
schrieb Tim Sutton <tim at linfiniti.com>:

> Hit
> 
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Martin Dobias <wonder.sk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Tim Sutton <tim at linfiniti.com> wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Paolo Cavallini
> >> <cavallini at faunalia.it> wrote:
> >>> Il 19/12/2012 16:54, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>>> From my side I think that we either need to remove blockers from the
> >>>> list or wait, its as simple as that. The former option seems more
> >>>> logical to me. We were hoping for an end December feature freeze, but
> >>>> I suggest we push that out to end Jan and then just roll what we have
> >>>> into a 2.0 release - there are already so many great new things in
> >>>> master it will more than warrant a 2.0 designation.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>> thanks.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are others agreed on this approach too?
> >
> > I would be happier to have the feature freeze sometime in spring
> > (March-April).
> >
> > I'm nearly at the end of the great vector API refactoring - recently I
> > have pushed new_vector_api branch to the github repository (I will
> > write about the changes soon to the dev list), I think that in few
> > weeks it should be ready for the merge to master. The introduction of
> > threading may appear in few weeks after that if everything goes well.
> > Therefore if we postpone feature freeze, there is a good chance for
> > threading to appear in 2.0 with all its goodness.
> >
> 
> Ok that sounds reasonable.
> 
> > Anyway it would be good to revise the blockers for 2.0. I think the
> > priority is mainly to get rid of old stuff (old symbology, old
> > labeling). New features that do not necessarily need to break API
> > (e.g. "Universal usage of expression builder") can be easily removed
> > from the list of blockers.
> 
> Agreed - so we basically prune off things from the blockers list where
> we can and add the vector API reshuffle to the 'this is really really
> a blocker' list.
> 
> As far as leaving 1.8 out there longer I am happy to do that as it is
> quite a good release as far as our user feedback goes. Paolo obviously
> would like something 'fresher' and general opinion as we know always
> varies from the 'keep it around ' to 'where is the new stuff?'.... In
> this case I think our hands are tied since we cannot easily make an
> intermediate release.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Tim
> 
> >
> > Martin
e