[Qgis-psc] QGIS LTR releases -- is it time to pull the plug?

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi Nyall,

Thank you for the discussion.

Here are some additional ideas/options:

- strictly separate the build systems and libraries of LTR and regular
releases. Parts of the problem stem from the fact that during the lifetime
of an LTR underlying libraries are updated. Ideally, the libraries of the
LT releases only receive bug fixes, but no new features
- put more resources into manual testing
- put more resources into packaging in general
- let every release be checked manually by a couple of dedicates power
users (at least the LTR ones) before it goes out to the public

I know - all of these need personal/financial resources.

Andreas

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 20:57, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi lists,
>
> I'd like to start some conversation about the dire condition of the
> QGIS LTR release and what we can do to remedy/avoid this in future.
>
> If you've missed the conversation, our QGIS 3.16 windows releases have
> been completely broken for nearly a month now. 3.16.12 had a critical
> issue which caused lockups in Python code, and now 3.16.13 has
> completely broken projection handling (resulting in loss of CRS,
> hangups when opening projects, etc).
>
> So what do we do? I can think of a few responses we could make:
>
> - Kill 3.16.13 with fire. It needs to be removed from the website and
> all traces of the internet ASAP. Rollback to only offering 3.16.11,
> which is the last good Windows 3.16 release.
>
> - Put out a massive apology (and ask users to step up their funding to
> better maintain QGIS releases in future ;)
>
> - Mark 3.16 as an early EOL. (I can't see anyone interested in
> resolving the actual issue, so we've no way forward here in releasing
> a "good" 3.16 release again.)
>
> - Write the LTR releases off as a failed concept. (i.e. if we don't
> have the resources to maintain them properly, we shouldn't be offering
> them at all and should resort back to the single maintained release at
> any one time situation.)
>
> - Lower the supported period of a LTR release to 6 months?
>
> - Offer "theoretical" LTR releases ONLY as source code, but leave it
> to users to compile themselves and accept responsibility for their own
> packaging of this release.
>
> - Go on a funding drive so that QGIS can **pay** a developer and
> packager so that we actually CAN say we have stable LTR releases
> again?
>
> - ...something else...?
>
> Suffice to say, these are big issues, with big responses. But we're
> also under extreme time pressure here -- 3.16 is broken beyond belief,
> and we DO need to make some public responses asap (i.e. TODAY!!!!)
>
> Nyall
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>


-- 

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20211115/cfe2700c/attachment.html>