[Qgis-psc] Moving to 3.0

[Matthias Kuhn]

Thank you Tim and Nathan

On 02/02/2016 10:09 AM, Tim Sutton wrote:
> Hi
>
>> On 02 Feb 2016, at 00:51, Nathan Woodrow <madmanwoo at gmail.com
>> <mailto:madmanwoo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I feel parallel development, and on such a big migration, will burn
>> out any resources we already have and 2.16 will be ignored anyway for
>> most work.
>>
>> For me just having to switch between LTR and non LTR for bug fixing
>> is a pain let alone versions with different APIs, different release
>> plans, different Python versions, etc
>>

I wholehartedly agree to this.

> Anyway whether we go this route or another, it would be good to try to
> harmonise our thoughts - I don’t think it is great for the PSC to
> present a plan that only half of us agree on / believe in. One way to
> do this is to try to bullet out the individual high level requirements
> for a 3.0 release (e.g. shift to python 3, shift to PyQt5) in a table
> and have a column for each PSC member to agree or disagree with. That
> way we can isolate the specific contention points and focus on those.
> My feel is that most disagreement now lies with the branching strategy
> we use. As Andreas mentioned cynically, there has been a lot of flip
> flopping of positions so it is kind of hard to get a good idea of
> where the consensus lies. If anyone has a better idea of how to reach
> consensus, could you let us know what it is, otherwise I will set up
> the decision matrix that we can all put our agree/disagree notes into. OK?

I think that expertise in this matter is at least as widespread under
core developers as under the PSC. Given that we do not yet have a clear
opinion from the PSC, I would appreciate to get a short list of
requirements from core developers concerning the transition that can
serve the PSC as guidelines in this decision.

My main requirements are:

  * A bit of lead time (at least 4 months) before the last 2.x release
happens [1]
  * No dual branch strategy: at a given time all new features shall be
targetted at the same subsequent version [2]
  * More time for the 3.0 release [3]
  * 3.0 will not be an LTR [4]

Cheers
Matthias

[1] OTOH, an extra 2.x release can be discussed based on experiences
down the road
[2] See Nathans comment above
[3] Proposal 8 months
[4] 3.2 or 3.4, please announce early (i.e. before 3.0 release) as
"planned as LTR" and at 3.0 release re-evaluate and tag one as "accepted
LTR"

-- 
Matthias Kuhn
OPENGIS.ch - https://www.opengis.ch
Spatial • (Q)GIS • PostGIS • Open Source

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20160204/0cc563a9/attachment.html>