[Qgis-psc] Which version should be LT?

[Neumann, Andreas]

Hi, 

Fine with me. 

For me its more important to have 2.16 than having 2.16 as LT version. I
could always hire someone to do another 2.16 bug fix release, should we
need it. 

This should make the people happy who expect 2.14 to be an LT release
and still leaves us with the option to have more than one bug fix
releases on 2.16. 

Thanks, 

Andreas 

On 2016-01-29 14:57, Nathan Woodrow wrote: 

> Hi all, 
> 
> I agree I think we need to stick to the set plan which was set for a reason, go with LTR for 2.14 and then do 2.16 and 3.0 
> 
> 3.0 is going to be hard enough as is without last minute changes to the release plans around LTR. 
> 
> - Nathan
> 
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:52 pm Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> wrote: 
> 
>> How about this,
>> 
>> We stick to the original plan, release 2.14 as LTR. It's a bit short to
>> change plans, especially if it has been communicated to clients (I'm
>> sure René-Luc D'Hont is not the only one). Let's increase the trust into
>> our roadmaps.
>> 
>> We make another 2.16 release so we can provide customers with promised
>> development in a reasonable time. Plus we can start to collect
>> experience with py3, pyqt5 (I started to roll the drums for it. The
>> argument "if we don't do a hard break nobody does anything" no longer
>> counts, sorry ;) ).
>> 
>> At the moment we have two versions which we feed with patches: 2.12 and
>> 2.8 (besides master). Then it will be 2.16 and 2.14 (besides
>> to-become-3.0-master). No difference really.
>> As a user you can play it safe and go for 2.14, you can play it fancy
>> and go 2.16. Or you can use the 2.16 release to start porting your
>> plugins, to provide feedback for the migration...
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> PS:
>> The alternative is, we end up with a broken master in 3 weeks, no ported
>> core plugins, no other plugins for it, no working unit tests, no roadmap
>> for plugin developers which version to target and a lot of them only
>> working on either the 2.x or the 3.x version of their plugin and we have
>> unhappy customers because they have to wait a long time before they get
>> their features (which they ordered and have been offered due to lack of
>> a proper roadmap).
>> 
>> Please, show some love and vote for a smooth migration path :)
>> 
>> --
>> Matthias Kuhn
>> OPENGIS.ch - https://www.opengis.ch
>> Spatial * (Q)GIS * PostGIS * Open Source
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160129/47aeca79/attachment.html>