[Qgis-psc] Clarification of outcome of PSC meeting 16/1

[Nathan Woodrow]

If we are planning on doing a 3.0 I think it really needs to come with
Python 3 and Qt5 on all platforms (We can't have Python 2.7 and Python 3,
that is just going to lead to more pain I think).  This is going to break
all the plugins again, are we sure we can do that at this time?  If so we
need to be really prepared for it.

- Nathan

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Anita Graser <anitagraser at gmx.at> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Richard Duivenvoorde
> <rdmailings at duif.net> wrote:
> > - no descision on 3.0 version taken yet
> > - I think(!) that slight api changes for composer-code is allowed as
> > somebody mentioned that that api is not so much used by plugins...
>
> As mentioned yesterday, I would rather not see "soft api breaks"
> between minor releases because I think it's confusing and messy when
> there could be clear rules that no api breaks are allowed between
> minor releases. It's a question of how safe devs and users feel to
> invest into developing tools for QGIS.
>
> > if you ask me personally I would not make 2.10 a 3.0 version as to me it
> > looks better to have another 2.x version after a LTR as backporting
> > fixes will be much harder when we start breaking api immediately   after
> > a LTR.
>
> I agree and think that 2.12 could become 3.0 since there seems to be
> some level of agreement that the February release should be the LTR
> and conservative users might prefer a 3.2 LTR.
>
> I assume this should be discussed and decided on 26th.
>
> Best wishes,
> Anita
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20150117/f59b82a9/attachment.html>