From valentin.buira at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 10:08:37 2026 From: valentin.buira at gmail.com (Valentin Buira) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 19:08:37 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for vote on QEP 415 and QEP 418 Message-ID: Hi devs These QEPs have ended the discussion phase and have been selected to be part of the QGIS 2026 grant program. Both QEPs were accepted by the PSC (in the mailing list and later on blog.qgis.org). But I would like a formal vote by core contributors so I can start the development. Please cast your vote on the following QEPs: * QEP 415: Refactor the evaluation of processing model with a dependency graph [1] * QEP 418: Better versioning for ".model3" file format [2] Thanks in advance for taking the time to vote. I would prefer to have an explicit vote rather than consider a QEP implicitly accepted due to a lack of voting, since this could set a precedent for future QEPs. Best regards, Valentin [1] https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/372 [2] https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/375 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denis.rouzaud at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 02:22:04 2026 From: denis.rouzaud at gmail.com (Denis Rouzaud) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 11:22:04 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Next 4.x LTR Message-ID: Dear PSC, dear Devs, On the release schedule, the next LTR still targets 4.2.4 in October. Two things to consider from https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/377: - HTML print layout support is targeted for 4.4 (which is/seems to be a big blocker, requiring a backport) - The stability of 4.2 is questioned I also feel that we could wait for 4.4 to do a LTR but the timing is getting critical. "Enterprise" users are wondering what is the current status, and we don't have a clear answer. I believe it would be the right time to take a decision on this? So we can tell users a bit more in advance. Or is the decision already taken to stick to the plan? A related matter is the following question of keeping backports to 3.44. Cheers, Denis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at opengis.ch Thu Aug 20 03:24:12 2026 From: david at opengis.ch (David Signer) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 12:24:12 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Next 4.x LTR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Denis, for raising this topic. I understand the considerations publishing 4.2 as LTR. But I believe many users would be disappointed by another rescheduling. They have been waiting quite a while for a release with more than 4 months of support, especially since we already rescheduled release 4.0. For most of them, an LTR is nothing else than a release that gets longer support. Of course, we would need to make it clear that e.g. HTML support is not provided and that moving from 3 to 4 is a big step that carries some risks. I just wanted to point this out. Anyway I'm open to being convinced that a reschedule is really necessary. Thanks anyway and cheers Dave On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 11:22?AM Denis Rouzaud via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Dear PSC, dear Devs, > > On the release schedule, the next LTR still targets 4.2.4 in October. > > Two things to consider from > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/377: > - HTML print layout support is targeted for 4.4 (which is/seems to be a > big blocker, requiring a backport) > - The stability of 4.2 is questioned > > I also feel that we could wait for 4.4 to do a LTR but the timing is > getting critical. "Enterprise" users are wondering what is the current > status, and we don't have a clear answer. > > I believe it would be the right time to take a decision on this? So we > can tell users a bit more in advance. > Or is the decision already taken to stick to the plan? > > A related matter is the following question of keeping backports to 3.44. > > Cheers, > Denis > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From jef at norbit.de Thu Aug 20 05:14:07 2026 From: jef at norbit.de (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_E=2E?= Fischer) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Next 4.x LTR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20260820121407.tx6cjh5kqkawnwga@norbit.de> Hi Denis, On Thu, 20. Aug 2026 at 11:22:04 +0200, Denis Rouzaud via QGIS-Developer wrote: > On the release schedule, the next LTR still targets 4.2.4 in October. Well, actually that's already done. The branch is what is LTR and that's release-4_2 with the ltr-4_2 tag. So rescheduling would at least mean to remove that tag (and AFAIK everyone who already pulled it, would have to delete it manually). That the new LTR doesn't get instantantly to the LTR repos is just because the repos get an update all four weeks and while the new ltr is still the latest release, we would have only one release to feed to both. Therefore the previous ltr release is still put into the ltr package repos, while the new ltr release that is also the latest release goes into the other repos. The ltr enters the ltr repos once there's a new release. That way both repos get continuous updates and following the ltr repos gives you a new ltr only after it has been around for a while. But in my view the LTR started with the branch and gets more stability just because it's longer maintained. J?rgen -- J?rgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstra?e 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden https://www.norbit.de Germany Matrix: @jef:osgeo.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julien.cabieces at oslandia.com Thu Aug 20 05:39:23 2026 From: julien.cabieces at oslandia.com (Julien Cabieces) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 14:39:23 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Next 4.x LTR In-Reply-To: (Denis Rouzaud via's message of "Thu, 20 Aug 2026 11:22:04 +0200") References: Message-ID: <87jyplezk4.fsf@julienlaptop.home> Hi all, And thank you Denis for raising this topic. I was also debatting this matter yesterday with some colleagues. > Dear PSC, dear Devs, > > On the release schedule, the next LTR still targets 4.2.4 in October. > > Two things to consider from https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/377: > - HTML print layout support is targeted for 4.4 (which is/seems to be > a big blocker, requiring a backport) I'm wondering if it would be possible to backport it to 4.2 before 4.2.4. > - The stability of 4.2 is questioned > I also hear this kind of opinion here and there, from users and developers. Do we have factual elements that tend to demonstrate that the 4.2 is not stable enough ? Are there any other strong blocking points ? I'm not against a rescheduling but like David pointed out, It's not without consequences. Regards, Julien > I also feel that we could wait for 4.4 to do a LTR but the timing is getting critical. "Enterprise" users are wondering what is the current status, > and we don't have a clear answer. > > I believe it would be the right time to take a decision on this? So we can tell users a bit more in advance. > Or is the decision already taken to stick to the plan? > > A related matter is the following question of keeping backports to 3.44. > > Cheers, > Denis > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc -- Julien Cabieces Senior Developer at Oslandia julien.cabieces at oslandia.com From jef at norbit.de Thu Aug 20 06:36:05 2026 From: jef at norbit.de (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_E=2E?= Fischer) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 15:36:05 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Next 4.x LTR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20260820133605.nz42s36bcx5w6ndg@norbit.de> Hi Ethan, On Thu, 20. Aug 2026 at 13:23:04 +0000, Ethan Snyder via QGIS-Developer wrote: > If it is decided to move forward with 4.2 to become the next LTR, could we > add a new item in the OSGeo4W Network installer for qgis-3-ltr? Not necessary. You can install always install old packages from snapshots. https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo4w#Olderversionsfromreposnapshots And the old MSI won't vanish either. But there are obviously not going to be updated. J?rgen -- J?rgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstra?e 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden https://www.norbit.de QGIS release manager (PSC) Germany Matrix: @jef:osgeo.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 18:54:28 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 11:54:28 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Next 4.x LTR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 at 19:22, Denis Rouzaud via QGIS-PSC wrote: > > Dear PSC, dear Devs, > > On the release schedule, the next LTR still targets 4.2.4 in October. > > Two things to consider from https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/377: > - HTML print layout support is targeted for 4.4 (which is/seems to be a big blocker, requiring a backport) > - The stability of 4.2 is questioned > > I also feel that we could wait for 4.4 to do a LTR but the timing is getting critical. "Enterprise" users are wondering what is the current status, and we don't have a clear answer. > > I believe it would be the right time to take a decision on this? So we can tell users a bit more in advance. > Or is the decision already taken to stick to the plan? My 2c: tagging a release as an LTR isn't *just* a commitment to supporting it for extra patch releases, it's also the project officially recommending it as the stable release which should be used by enterprise customers. I don't think we're there yet for 4.2. 3.44 is a VERY solid release, and I think we'd be doing our enterprise users a disservice by officially promoting the idea that 4.4 is just as stable. Nyall > > A related matter is the following question of keeping backports to 3.44. > > Cheers, > Denis > > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc From jef at norbit.de Mon Aug 24 06:14:57 2026 From: jef at norbit.de (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_E=2E?= Fischer) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:14:57 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Next 4.x LTR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20260824131457.ac7w6kjfv64sr5dp@norbit.de> Hi Nyall, On Fri, 21. Aug 2026 at 11:54:28 +1000, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote: > I don't think we're there yet for 4.2. 3.44 is a VERY solid release, > and I think we'd be doing our enterprise users a disservice by > officially promoting the idea that 4.4 is just as stable. So your suggestion is to removed the ltr-4_2 tag and continue 3.44 as LTR for the forseeable future until there is a 4.x release that is close to the stability of 3.44? J?rgen -- J?rgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstra?e 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden https://www.norbit.de QGIS release manager (PSC) Germany Matrix: @jef:osgeo.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 17:26:09 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 10:26:09 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Next 4.x LTR In-Reply-To: <20260824131457.ac7w6kjfv64sr5dp@norbit.de> References: <20260824131457.ac7w6kjfv64sr5dp@norbit.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 at 23:15, J?rgen E. Fischer via QGIS-Developer wrote: > > Hi Nyall, > > On Fri, 21. Aug 2026 at 11:54:28 +1000, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote: > > I don't think we're there yet for 4.2. 3.44 is a VERY solid release, > > and I think we'd be doing our enterprise users a disservice by > > officially promoting the idea that 4.4 is just as stable. > > So your suggestion is to removed the ltr-4_2 tag and continue 3.44 as LTR for > the forseeable future until there is a 4.x release that is close to the > stability of 3.44? That's my feeling. (I mean -- try opening a layout, selecting two items, and group ... *CRASH*. This is the kind of fundamental issue I'm referring to when I say 4.2 isn't a match for 3.44 for stability). Nyall > > > J?rgen > > -- > J?rgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 > Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstra?e 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 > Software Engineer D-26506 Norden https://www.norbit.de > QGIS release manager (PSC) Germany Matrix: @jef:osgeo.org > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer