[Qgis-psc] QGIS LTR release schedule

Thu Sep 21 03:15:07 PDT 2023

Hello all,

Alessandro asked me to resume the situation of LTR release testing cycles,
so I decided to revive this thread. For further detail please review the
messages above.
The last test cycle I ran was for 3.28.4 (OsGeo4w and MSI installers on
windows), that's when the 3.30.0 version was out, in march. According to my
original plan, I have missed the 3.28.8, when the 3.32.0 release was made.

At that time, in march, I mentioned that by the time I started the tests,
lot's of more savvy folks had already downloaded and installed the new
version, because it was updated on OSGeo4w. So any nasty generic bugs would
have been found by the users right away. Since the goal is to avoid that,
the testing feeled a bit useless. I suggested if we could implement a (at
least) one week packaging freeze. Not sure if this would be possible or
not, but after the bug campaign, all merges would stop and the packaging
preparation would be done and ready on qgis-ltr-full-dev. We would then
test that branch for that "packaging freezing" period, and report back on
any issue. Once the found bugs are fixed or classified as non-blocking and
tests pass, all the packaging changes would become available as
qgis-ltr-full on osgeow4. We can then decide if we also want to run the
smoke tests on the MSI installers once they become available.

I know that this would delay the release a bit more, but if this was
implemented, I would happily restart the testing work.

Let me know if this is not possible, or if my suggestion has other
implications that I may not be taking in consideration.

Best regards,

Alexandre Neto

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 10:14, Alexandre Neto <senhor.neto at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Andreas,
>
> Yes, I am ok to run some extra testing in the first monthly patch releases.
>
> Yes, the tests we run for now are quite limited. Basically, making sure
> the installed applications run, that all processing providers are available
> and run. I added some extra testing to make sure all the gdal executable
> run as well. My next in line plans to expand the testing are to run some
> testing on the browser panel. And test as many data formats possible. I am
> welcome to more manual testing ideas.
>
> Regarding the packages, I don't know enough of how the packaging works,
> soo I don't know if it's possible, but maybe having it ready and freezed on
> qgis-ltr-dev-full for a week, would be enough. We would start by testing
> the OSGeo4w installation first, make it available on qgis-ltr-full if
> everything looks good, and then wait and test the msi package later.
>
> About Den Bosch, I am afraid I can't make it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexandre Neto
>
> On Thu Mar 23, 2023, 05:24 PM GMT, Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex, Giovanni, Jürgen and PSC colleagues,
>
> Sorry about my late reply.
>
> So it seems to me that you have nothing against releasing more often again
> - right?
>
> Your main problem seems to be that you have no way to get a hands on a
> release before it is released to the general public - right? Jürgen - is
> there something we can do, so that Alex and Giovanni can get a new release
> a week before the general public gets it?
>
> Your current tests are quite limited: does it install correctly, can it
> open some projects, etc. - no extensive testing done with the current
> resources and time frame.
>
> It would be great if Jürgen could make the packages first available to
> Giovanni/Alex - before they get released officially to the general public.
>
> We can also discuss the release and test process in Den Bosch - I see that
> Jürgen and Giovanni are there - but I don't see Alex listed - are you
> planning to participate, Alex?
>
> Thanks and greetings,
> Andreas
>
> On 2023-03-09 10:21, Alexandre Neto via QGIS-PSC wrote:
>
> Hello Andreas et al.
>
> I almost forgot the plan to reducing the number of patch releases.
>
> What I have been doing, even with monthly patch releases, is to test the
> LTR releases when they happen at the same time as a new stable release ( I
> believe that's when the major issues may arrise from possible dependency
> bumps). But we can try to make it on every month on the LTR patch releases
> if it's only for the extra 3 months.
>
> Unfortunately, The test cases list is still not very big, and mainly
> limited by installation tests:
>
> https://qgis.tenant.kiwitcms.org/plan/37/3-28-4-installation-smoke-tests
>
> It would be nicer if we can add specific tests for "dangerous" backports
> or bumps in dependencies, but we would need a tip from developers about it,
> as, at least for me, it's not always clear what could be the implications
> of each change.
>
> To be honest, given the current packaging infrastructure, because there's
> no "testing freeze", and every LTR patch appears immediately on OSGeo4w,
> many users install the new LTR version before me or Giovanni have the
> chance to test it out.
>
> By testing freeze, I mean a period, minimum 1 week, where there is no more
> bug fixing, packaging is done ( maybe only on osgeo4w?) and we can test the
> final artifacts before they are released to public. For this, those
> artifacts could not land on OSGeo4w LTR branch.
>
> Without this period, the first manual tests, even if not organized, are
> always done by less patient users that are eager to install the new
> versions and automatically update the LTR.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alexandre Neto
>
> On Tue Mar 7, 2023, 08:39 PM GMT, Andreas Neumann <andreas at qgis.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex and Giovanni,
>
> In today's PSC meeting the PSC discussed (again) the LTR release schedule,
> which was recently thinned out due to discussion on QEP 239 "Manual
> Testing on LTR Releases and Release Schedule",
> <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/239> When we
> accepted the thinned out schedule for LTR, we did not have on the table
> that there is also a "quarantine" rule - that means that a backport should
> first go into the regular release where it is tested more broadly, before
> it can be backported to LTR. In worst case, there is a waiting period of
> about 4 months, until the backport ends up in LTR, because of the thinned
> out release schedule.
>
> We want to suggest yet another change in the schedule that the larger
> organizations, that start to look at an LTR usually after it passed the
> first three months, can still get regular monthly releases until we reached
> approx. the 3.xx.9 release. Then I think we can thin out the schedule as
> planned before.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Alex and Giovanni: would you support that change? What additional
> resources or support would you need to handle this change with respect to
> manual testing?
>
> Thank you for your reply,
> Andreas
>
> --
> Andreas Neumann
> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-PSC mailing list
> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20230921/ef084430/attachment.htm>