[Qgis-psc] PSC Meeting log from 8/4?

[Luigi Pirelli]

hi,

may we plane a dedicated timespace during next Hackmeeting?... and
probably, when goals will be more fixed, this discussion would be
moved (technically speaking) to qgis-developer.

regards, Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Elance: https://www.elance.com/s/edit/luigipirelli/
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* Mastering QGIS:
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/mastering-qgis
**************************************************************************************************


On 13 April 2015 at 10:26, Marco Hugentobler
<marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch> wrote:
> Hi Nathan
>
>>If we wanted to go with 3.0 then I would suggest skip 2.10
>
> That would mean feature freeze for 3.0 is 26.09?
>
> I'm also in favor of extending the development period. 22.05. is very close
> for the geometry changes (and for the PyQt changes even more).
>
> Reards,
> Marco
>
>
>
> On 13.04.2015 02:29, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I'm not sure I am super keen to make a 3.0 jump half way (or more) though a
> cycle.  If we are going to do 3.0 I think it needs to be planned out more
> and QEPs done for the major changes.  Not doing this risks leaving users in
> the dark on the API breaks and that never turns out well.    The main QEPs
> and changes that need to be reviewed for the changes are the new geometry
> stuff, PyQt5/Python3, removing old V2 methods and labeling stuff.  Might as
> well do it with a bang if we are going to do it.
>
> If we wanted to go with 3.0 then I would suggest skip 2.10 and extend this
> period by 2 cycles so we have longer, get in review the API and QEPs, and
> have a plan rather then "just break whatever whenever and then release like
> normal".
>
> I can understand that moving to PyQt5 might be a forced hand because of
> platform changes and that it is really going to break our API whenever they
> do it. If that is the case I think we really need a strong plan around it so
> we can have it all done at the same time.  No point in releasing 3.0 with no
> PyQt5 and then having to break again for PyQt5 a few months later.  Also
> mentioning that PyQt5 seems to be Python3 only at the moment which can also
> bring other issue so those need to be addressed.
>
> As PyQt5 will break all the plugins again I think there needs to be some
> good education around it.    Python 3 has been out for years and people
> still don't move from 2.7, they didn't educate well and people didn't move
> then same can happen to us.
>
> - Nathan
>
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 at 05:35 Anita Graser <anitagraser at gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nyall,
>>
>> I've posted my log - bit of the beginning missing -
>> http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_8_April_2015
>>
>> Here's the part on QGIS 3:
>>
>> (3:51:39 PM) mhugent: So the question is how and when go for version 3
>> (3:51:58 PM) mhugent: E.g. QGIS3 after 2.10?
>> (3:52:16 PM) pcav: IMHO, since we have a LTR
>> (3:52:20 PM) pcav: we can go anytime
>> (3:52:25 PM) pcav: preferably soon
>> (3:52:38 PM) pcav: so people will have more safe time with the LTR
>> (3:52:42 PM) aneumann: Would 3.1 be another LTR then?
>> (3:52:52 PM) timlinux: yeah I also dont see much point in waiting till
>> after a 2.10
>> (3:53:12 PM) anitagraser: any time that works for you
>> (3:53:16 PM) timlinux: aneumann: yes
>> (3:53:24 PM) timlinux: 3.2
>> (3:53:26 PM) pcav: conservative peple can stay on 2.8 for 1 yr
>> (3:53:45 PM) pcav: and move to 3.2 after that
>> (3:53:48 PM) aneumann: it would be good to have something stable in Feb
>> 2016
>> (3:54:15 PM) pcav: right, that's why I'm suggesting to move soon
>> (3:54:23 PM) pcav: to 3
>> (3:54:42 PM) mhugent: For me it is also the sooner the better.
>> (3:55:12 PM) mhugent: jef, what is your opinion (since you are the release
>> manager)?
>> (3:55:26 PM) aneumann: the question is if the ideas for the new API are
>> already ready/good enought to start with QGIS3?
>> (3:56:15 PM) aneumann: or maybe there are things to discuss before?
>> (3:56:47 PM) timlinux_ [~timlinux at 105-208-59-252.access.mtnbusiness.co.za]
>> entered the room.
>> (3:56:57 PM) timlinux_: sorry folks I have to board my flight
>> (3:57:24 PM) jef: mhugent: I don't have strong opinions about version
>> numbers and api stability.   the api should never be turned inside out and
>> constantly changes anyway.
>> (3:57:38 PM) timlinux left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 246 seconds).
>> (3:57:38 PM) timlinux_: +1 from me to make the next release a jump to 3.0
>> but we need to hear from nyall
>> (3:57:52 PM) aneumann: Nyall told me that he can implement things in
>> parallel for the print composer - similar to symbology 1/2 or labeling 1/2
>> (3:57:53 PM) timlinux_: because he may have specific timelines
>> (3:57:53 PM) pcav: +1
>> (3:57:59 PM) timlinux_: ok
>> (3:58:01 PM) anitagraser: +1
>> (3:58:09 PM) timlinux_: ok folks I will catch up in the logs
>> (3:58:16 PM) timlinux_ left the room (quit: Remote host closed the
>> connection).
>> (3:58:28 PM) dassau: +1
>> (3:58:30 PM) aneumann: but that was because he did not get any feedback on
>> when QGIS3 will be started
>> (3:58:45 PM) aneumann: Maybe he would prefer otherwise
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Anita