Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Tim Sutton-5
Dear QGIS Developers


For some time now we have been talking about moving to 3.0. The PSC is looking for proposals on how to manage the process of moving to QGIS 3.0. For a little more context please see the blog post I have made [1]. Once we have all the proposals in (please see the example from Matthias Kuhn at the bottom of the aforementioned post and keep it nice & simple)  we will collate them and then select one (or a hybrid of several) and share those plans with the broader community. I will make all the proposals publicly available and we will make the final decision in consultation with the developer community.



Regards

Tim



Tim Sutton
QGIS Project Steering Committee Member





_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Nyall Dawson
On 18 January 2016 at 09:03, Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear QGIS Developers
>
>
> For some time now we have been talking about moving to 3.0. The PSC is looking for proposals on how to manage the process of moving to QGIS 3.0. For a little more context please see the blog post I have made [1]. Once we have all the proposals in (please see the example from Matthias Kuhn at the bottom of the aforementioned post and keep it nice & simple)  we will collate them and then select one (or a hybrid of several) and share those plans with the broader community. I will make all the proposals publicly available and we will make the final decision in consultation with the developer community.
>

Great summary Tim! Thanks for helping push this along.

It's probably no surprise (since Matthias and I have spoken at length
regarding this), but I'm in favour of Proposal 1. I just don't believe
we have the resources to support any form of parallel development like
proposal 2 requires.

Nyall


>
> [1] http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/
>
> Regards
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> Tim Sutton
> QGIS Project Steering Committee Member
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Andreas Neumann-4
Hi Tim,

Thank you for this blog post with the summary - It will help to move
forward with this topic.

Pending any other/better proposals I am also in favour of
Matthias/Nyalls proposal with the intermediate 2.16 release and then
moving on/concentrating on 3.0 - with potentially a 8 month release cycle.

Of course it would have been better to start with 3.0 immediately after
a LT release - but that opportunity has gone - as we did not
prepare/announce it properly and well in advance.

Andreas

On 17.01.2016 23:38, Nyall Dawson wrote:

> On 18 January 2016 at 09:03, Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear QGIS Developers
>>
>>
>> For some time now we have been talking about moving to 3.0. The PSC is looking for proposals on how to manage the process of moving to QGIS 3.0. For a little more context please see the blog post I have made [1]. Once we have all the proposals in (please see the example from Matthias Kuhn at the bottom of the aforementioned post and keep it nice & simple)  we will collate them and then select one (or a hybrid of several) and share those plans with the broader community. I will make all the proposals publicly available and we will make the final decision in consultation with the developer community.
>>
> Great summary Tim! Thanks for helping push this along.
>
> It's probably no surprise (since Matthias and I have spoken at length
> regarding this), but I'm in favour of Proposal 1. I just don't believe
> we have the resources to support any form of parallel development like
> proposal 2 requires.
>
> Nyall
>
>
>> [1] http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Sutton
>> QGIS Project Steering Committee Member
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-developer mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Richard Duivenvoorde
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
On 17-01-16 23:38, Nyall Dawson wrote:

> On 18 January 2016 at 09:03, Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear QGIS Developers
>>
>> For some time now we have been talking about moving to 3.0. The PSC is looking for proposals on how to manage the process of moving to QGIS 3.0. For a little more context please see the blog post I have made [1]. Once we have all the proposals in (please see the example from Matthias Kuhn at the bottom of the aforementioned post and keep it nice & simple)  we will collate them and then select one (or a hybrid of several) and share those plans with the broader community. I will make all the proposals publicly available and we will make the final decision in consultation with the developer community.
>
> Great summary Tim! Thanks for helping push this along.
>
> It's probably no surprise (since Matthias and I have spoken at length
> regarding this), but I'm in favour of Proposal 1. I just don't believe
> we have the resources to support any form of parallel development like
> proposal 2 requires.

Hi Nyall,

I also agree with your argument that we do not have resources to support
parallel development.

But I do not agree with the two plans Tim proposed.

I would favour the project to concentrate fully on a QGIS 3.0. I thought
we already spoke about this one year ago: 2.14 would be the last LTR in
the 2.x serie so current 2.x users can at least use that one (plus ltr
fixes if really needed).

And the project could then fully focus on a good Qt4, Py3, new api version.
Whether this is in master branch or in a separate qgis3 branch (so we
can fall back if really needed) I am not sure.

I think without full focus on a transition it just will not happen.
Personally I think current options are too much of a compromise, and we
will end up with a lot of wrappers and hacks to keep 2.x alive while
also trying to server 3.0...

But I'm not a core dev so devs feel free to convince me that *for the
project* it is better to mix two python/qt/api versions and try to hide
that (as I see it). At the moment I just do not believe in this approach.

Regards,

Richard Duivenvoorde


_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
Hi Richard,

To stay focused, I just reply to the main points of your email.

On 01/18/2016 09:37 AM, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
> I think without full focus on a transition it just will not happen.

As main author of proposal 1 I can assure you: it endorses focused work
on QGIS 3.0 after release of 2.16.

> Personally I think current options are too much of a compromise, and we
> will end up with a lot of wrappers and hacks to keep 2.x alive while
> also trying to server 3.0...

 * At the moment our C++ codebase is compatible with Qt4 and Qt5. And no
hacks had to be introduced. We can take that as indicator that the same
works for PyQt.
 * Huge projects exist that have a codebase compatible with Python2 and
Python 3 (e.g. pandas [1]). We can take that as an indicator that a
compatible codebase is possible.

[1] https://github.com/pydata/pandas

> But I'm not a core dev so devs feel free to convince me that *for the
> project* it is better to mix two python/qt/api versions and try to hide
> that (as I see it). At the moment I just do not believe in this approach.

 * Usage of compatibility wrappers will be optional for plugin
developers. But they are very desirable for plugin developers who have
to support concurrent versions.
 * If it turns out that it is harder than expected we will still be free
to just completely dismiss compatibility support. But I wouldn't want to
not even try it because of believes and feelings.

Best regards,
Matthias


>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Duivenvoorde
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
--
Matthias Kuhn
OPENGIS.ch - https://www.opengis.ch
Spatial • (Q)GIS • PostGIS • Open Source



_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Richard Duivenvoorde
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-5
On 17-01-16 23:03, Tim Sutton wrote:

> Dear QGIS Developers
>
>
> For some time now we have been talking about moving to 3.0. The PSC is
> looking for proposals on how to manage the process of moving to QGIS
> 3.0. For a little more context please see the blog post I have made [1].
> Once we have all the proposals in (please see the example from Matthias
> Kuhn at the bottom of the aforementioned post and keep it nice & simple)
>  we will collate them and then select one (or a hybrid of several) and
> share those plans with the broader community. I will make all the
> proposals publicly available and we will make the final decision in
> consultation with the developer community.
>
>
> [1] http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/

Dev's,

Nobody else?

I would think that these kind of moves would attract some more
discussion, or at least some more interest :-(

Regards,

Richard



_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Tom Chadwin
I just thought I'd reassure you that the discussion is being read and not ignored. As just a plugin dev, I cannot offer any opinion - the core devs will come to the best consensus, and the rest of us can all then work at fixing our plugins.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

pcav
In reply to this post by Richard Duivenvoorde
Il 19/01/2016 10:38, Richard Duivenvoorde ha scritto:
> On 17-01-16 23:03, Tim Sutton wrote:
>> [1] http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/
>
> Dev's,
>
> Nobody else?

My suggestion:
* release 2.14 LTR
* move immediately to 3.0
* backport all fixes to 2.14, as usual for LTR
* allow for exception for new functions, on a case by case basis, if
these are especially important, of limited impact, and needed soon, well
before the expected release of 3.0 (I know this is against the LTR
concept, that's why I think it should be exceptional)
* provide help for plugin authors to migrate them to 3.0 API and libs.
Given our limited resources, and the need to move forward to follow the
availability of new libs on some platforms, I think the sooner we start
the better.
All the best.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Hugo Mercier
Hi,

On 19/01/2016 11:08, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

> Il 19/01/2016 10:38, Richard Duivenvoorde ha scritto:
>> On 17-01-16 23:03, Tim Sutton wrote:
>>> [1] http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/
>>
>> Dev's,
>>
>> Nobody else?
>
> My suggestion:
> * release 2.14 LTR
> * move immediately to 3.0
> * backport all fixes to 2.14, as usual for LTR
> * allow for exception for new functions, on a case by case basis, if
> these are especially important, of limited impact, and needed soon, well
> before the expected release of 3.0 (I know this is against the LTR
> concept, that's why I think it should be exceptional)

So a 2.14.x with possibly new features ... why not.

I am also in favor of the approach number 1: focus on the 3.0 rather
than "release when it's ready".

I think I would prefer to have another version in the 2.x branch (2.16)
to let people propose the features they are working on (even if I admit
the 3.0 version has been proposed as the next version since months)

Just an idea: what about a 2.16 being an LTR rather than the 2.14 ?

The blog post says for the approach 1 the main risk is a lack of
funding. Do we have some ideas of the amount of work needed ?

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by pcav

Hi,

QGIS is now used by a lot of professional users worldwide. A lot of them have contracts with QGIS developes/companies and expect that they can be delivered within a few months. If we move now to QGIS 3.0 on such short notice, without any concrete plan/warning, means such projects can only be delivered in early 2017, which might be a problem for many, including me and my employer. We need a few improvements in QGIS forms and widgets in the 2.x branch. We can't wait for them to be delivered only in 2017. CAD import would also be nice to have soon - though that is not equally important compared to the forms improvements.

I have to repeat again that Anita (also board member) promised that the board will inform all involved parties (e.g. devs, professional users) well in advance with such decisions. Now changing immediately to QGIS 3.0 on such short notice without a clear plan is exactly the opposite of good communication of the QGIS board with the user and developer base.

Because of this, I would like to have another 2x release, like Matthias, Hugo and Nyall suggest. We can then, as Mathias suggests already introduce Python 3 support in parallel with Python 2 support, which is an important ingredient of the upcoming QGIS 3.0 version. It would then still give us 8 months to mature the 3.0x version before the next LT release.

Hugos suggestion to have 2.16 as the LT release instead of 2.14 would also be fine and acceptable for me. Moving to 3.0 immediately would not work well for us.

Thanks,

Andreas

On 2016-01-19 11:08, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

Il 19/01/2016 10:38, Richard Duivenvoorde ha scritto:
On 17-01-16 23:03, Tim Sutton wrote:
[1] http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/

Dev's,

Nobody else?

My suggestion:
* release 2.14 LTR
* move immediately to 3.0
* backport all fixes to 2.14, as usual for LTR
* allow for exception for new functions, on a case by case basis, if
these are especially important, of limited impact, and needed soon, well
before the expected release of 3.0 (I know this is against the LTR
concept, that's why I think it should be exceptional)
* provide help for plugin authors to migrate them to 3.0 API and libs.
Given our limited resources, and the need to move forward to follow the
availability of new libs on some platforms, I think the sooner we start
the better.
All the best.

 

 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Martin Dobias
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 January 2016 at 09:03, Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear QGIS Developers
>>
>>
>> For some time now we have been talking about moving to 3.0. The PSC is looking for proposals on how to manage the process of moving to QGIS 3.0. For a little more context please see the blog post I have made [1]. Once we have all the proposals in (please see the example from Matthias Kuhn at the bottom of the aforementioned post and keep it nice & simple)  we will collate them and then select one (or a hybrid of several) and share those plans with the broader community. I will make all the proposals publicly available and we will make the final decision in consultation with the developer community.
>>
>
> Great summary Tim! Thanks for helping push this along.
>
> It's probably no surprise (since Matthias and I have spoken at length
> regarding this), but I'm in favour of Proposal 1. I just don't believe
> we have the resources to support any form of parallel development like
> proposal 2 requires.

I am also in favour of proposal 1 (release 2.16 and then 3.0) as it
has a good balance in terms of how much time in advance 3.0 is
announced, how much time is there to adjust to py3/qt5, and how much
extra time can be used for API breaking changes.

Cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Régis Haubourg
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
+1 with Andreas, the very same analysis here.
Cheers all,
Régis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

pcav
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Il 19/01/2016 14:12, Neumann, Andreas ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> QGIS is now used by a lot of professional users worldwide. A lot of them
...
> Hugos suggestion to have 2.16 as the LT release instead of 2.14 would
> also be fine and acceptable for me. Moving to 3.0 immediately would not
> work well for us.

Thanks Andreas, sounds reasonable to me.
It would be useful to know what are the improvements planned for 2.16:
could devs and customers share this with us?
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Régis Haubourg
Paolo Cavallini wrote
Il 19/01/2016 14:12, Neumann, Andreas ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> QGIS is now used by a lot of professional users worldwide. A lot of them
...
> Hugos suggestion to have 2.16 as the LT release instead of 2.14 would
> also be fine and acceptable for me. Moving to 3.0 immediately would not
> work well for us.

Thanks Andreas, sounds reasonable to me.
It would be useful to know what are the improvements planned for 2.16:
could devs and customers share this with us?
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
hey, we have a QEP process running around labeling / callout lines / saving ressources with qgs / porting easycustom labeling and mask plugin to core equivalent.

We can target 3.0, there is no hurry, as no coding work has been done yet. By the way, I would be pleased that we can achieve a vote on those QEP's so that I can plan future contracts and QGIS community can take that into account. Hugo, any opinion from your point of view?
All the best
Régis

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Nathan Woodrow
In reply to this post by Martin Dobias
+1 to 2.16 and then 3.0

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:26 pm Martin Dobias <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 09:03, Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear QGIS Developers
>>
>>
>> For some time now we have been talking about moving to 3.0. The PSC is looking for proposals on how to manage the process of moving to QGIS 3.0. For a little more context please see the blog post I have made [1]. Once we have all the proposals in (please see the example from Matthias Kuhn at the bottom of the aforementioned post and keep it nice & simple)  we will collate them and then select one (or a hybrid of several) and share those plans with the broader community. I will make all the proposals publicly available and we will make the final decision in consultation with the developer community.
>>
>
> Great summary Tim! Thanks for helping push this along.
>
> It's probably no surprise (since Matthias and I have spoken at length
> regarding this), but I'm in favour of Proposal 1. I just don't believe
> we have the resources to support any form of parallel development like
> proposal 2 requires.

I am also in favour of proposal 1 (release 2.16 and then 3.0) as it
has a good balance in terms of how much time in advance 3.0 is
announced, how much time is there to adjust to py3/qt5, and how much
extra time can be used for API breaking changes.

Cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Hugo Mercier
In reply to this post by pcav
On 19/01/2016 15:25, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

> Il 19/01/2016 14:12, Neumann, Andreas ha scritto:
>> Hi,
>>
>> QGIS is now used by a lot of professional users worldwide. A lot of them
> ...
>> Hugos suggestion to have 2.16 as the LT release instead of 2.14 would
>> also be fine and acceptable for me. Moving to 3.0 immediately would not
>> work well for us.
>
> Thanks Andreas, sounds reasonable to me.

> It would be useful to know what are the improvements planned for 2.16:
> could devs and customers share this with us?
> All the best.
>

On my list I have :

- a new symbol layer to draw straight and curved arrows on line layers,
as it's done by the "Arrows" plugin
- allow to pin diagrams
- some new drawing tools in the composer (polygons, lines)

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Hugo Mercier
In reply to this post by Régis Haubourg
Hi Régis,

On 19/01/2016 20:54, Régis Haubourg wrote:

>
> hey, we have a QEP process running around labeling / callout lines / saving
> ressources with qgs / porting easycustom labeling and mask plugin to core
> equivalent.
>
> We can target 3.0, there is no hurry, as no coding work has been done yet.
> By the way, I would be pleased that we can achieve a vote on those QEP's so
> that I can plan future contracts and QGIS community can take that into
> account. Hugo, any opinion from your point of view?

Yes, I think there are still some open questions around some of these
QEPs. I still need a little bit of time to clean them all and call for a
vote. I'll try to do it soon.


_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

pcav
Il 20/01/2016 08:55, Hugo Mercier ha scritto:

> Yes, I think there are still some open questions around some of these
> QEPs. I still need a little bit of time to clean them all and call for a
> vote. I'll try to do it soon.

Looking forward to it, thanks.
Any other major plans?
What is the state of other QEPs?
All the best.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
In reply to this post by Hugo Mercier
Hi,

On 01/19/2016 11:48 AM, Hugo Mercier wrote:
> Just an idea: what about a 2.16 being an LTR rather than the 2.14 ?

That would address some of the concerns brought up.
I like the idea.

Best

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



_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help us plan for QGIS 3.0

Tom Chadwin
> Just an idea: what about a 2.16 being an LTR rather than the 2.14 ? 

Counter-argument. This breaks the only newly established LTR release cycle which is cited as very attractive to corporate users.
12