[QGIS-Developer] 3.10 hard freeze?

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

[QGIS-Developer] 3.10 hard freeze?

3nids
Hi all,

I had a PR tagged as frozen this morning.
I guess this is related to the concept of hard freeze. Can someone give more information on soft vs hard freeze? Any what is accepted to be merged?

Cheers,
Denis

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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Nyall Dawson
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 15:33, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I had a PR tagged as frozen this morning.
> I guess this is related to the concept of hard freeze. Can someone give more information on soft vs hard freeze? Any what is accepted to be merged?

Denis,

My understanding is that the hard freeze is basically a "hands off"
for 3.10.0. We could consider 3.10.0 as being tagged for release as of
the freeze, and it's now just in a pending state while we put out
calls for testing.

I haven't seen any fixed guidelines on what we'd allow in during this
time, but my 2c is that we should only let in absolutely mission
critical, life-threatening stuff. Everything else needs to wait till
3.10.1.

On this note, for the hard freeze period I've set the github master
branch to use the same branch restrictions as we apply to our LTR
branch (no direct pushes, PRs require all passing tests + 1
non-submitter review).*

Nyall


.
.
.
.
.

* I'm quite tempted to "forget" to set this back after hard freeze ends ;)




>
> Cheers,
> Denis
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Peter Petrik
Hi,

I am wondering if it would be good idea to branch of the 3.10 when it is already in the hard freeze mode, so we are able to merge PRs to master for 3.12 release?
That way the HF fixes would me merged directly to 3.10 branch and also the tagging/release could be done on the branch before release? 

Peter

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:55 AM Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 15:33, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I had a PR tagged as frozen this morning.
> I guess this is related to the concept of hard freeze. Can someone give more information on soft vs hard freeze? Any what is accepted to be merged?

Denis,

My understanding is that the hard freeze is basically a "hands off"
for 3.10.0. We could consider 3.10.0 as being tagged for release as of
the freeze, and it's now just in a pending state while we put out
calls for testing.

I haven't seen any fixed guidelines on what we'd allow in during this
time, but my 2c is that we should only let in absolutely mission
critical, life-threatening stuff. Everything else needs to wait till
3.10.1.

On this note, for the hard freeze period I've set the github master
branch to use the same branch restrictions as we apply to our LTR
branch (no direct pushes, PRs require all passing tests + 1
non-submitter review).*

Nyall


.
.
.
.
.

* I'm quite tempted to "forget" to set this back after hard freeze ends ;)




>
> Cheers,
> Denis
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Nyall Dawson
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 16:19, Peter Petrik
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if it would be good idea to branch of the 3.10 when it is already in the hard freeze mode, so we are able to merge PRs to master for 3.12 release?
> That way the HF fixes would me merged directly to 3.10 branch and also the tagging/release could be done on the branch before release?

Check my other email on the dev list from earlier today ;)

Nyall

>
> Peter
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:55 AM Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 15:33, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I had a PR tagged as frozen this morning.
>> > I guess this is related to the concept of hard freeze. Can someone give more information on soft vs hard freeze? Any what is accepted to be merged?
>>
>> Denis,
>>
>> My understanding is that the hard freeze is basically a "hands off"
>> for 3.10.0. We could consider 3.10.0 as being tagged for release as of
>> the freeze, and it's now just in a pending state while we put out
>> calls for testing.
>>
>> I haven't seen any fixed guidelines on what we'd allow in during this
>> time, but my 2c is that we should only let in absolutely mission
>> critical, life-threatening stuff. Everything else needs to wait till
>> 3.10.1.
>>
>> On this note, for the hard freeze period I've set the github master
>> branch to use the same branch restrictions as we apply to our LTR
>> branch (no direct pushes, PRs require all passing tests + 1
>> non-submitter review).*
>>
>> Nyall
>>
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>> * I'm quite tempted to "forget" to set this back after hard freeze ends ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Denis
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > QGIS-Developer mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>> _______________________________________________
>> QGIS-Developer mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Borys Jurgiel-4
In reply to this post by 3nids
Dnia poniedziałek, 14 października 2019 07:32:52 CEST Denis Rouzaud pisze:
> Hi all,
>
> I had a PR tagged as frozen this morning.
> I guess this is related to the concept of hard freeze. Can someone give
> more information on soft vs hard freeze? Any what is accepted to be merged?

"Two weeks before the release a hard freeze is initiated, after which only
fixes to severe problems and regressions introduced after the feature freeze
are allowed in." - I found it accidentally in [1] this weekend and postponed
my PR for 3.10.1, apparently opening a Pandora's box...

Now after Régis' email I see there is a number of much more important fixes
waiting for a merge. That rule also stated "The release manager announces this
on feature freeze", what wasn't fulfilled. I'm not sure if all those PRs can
be merged into 3.10.1, or should be rather considered new features? In the
former case I wouldn't postpone all the release schedule, but if the latter,
that unexpected freeze should be IMHO thoroughly reconsidered.

Regards,
Borys

[1] https://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/development/roadmap.html#feature-freeze




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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Nyall Dawson
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 19:35, Borys Jurgiel <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Dnia poniedziałek, 14 października 2019 07:32:52 CEST Denis Rouzaud pisze:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I had a PR tagged as frozen this morning.
> > I guess this is related to the concept of hard freeze. Can someone give
> > more information on soft vs hard freeze? Any what is accepted to be merged?
>
> "Two weeks before the release a hard freeze is initiated, after which only
> fixes to severe problems and regressions introduced after the feature freeze
> are allowed in." - I found it accidentally in [1] this weekend and postponed
> my PR for 3.10.1, apparently opening a Pandora's box...

To be honest, I think most people forgot about this. I did too, until
your comment prompted my memory!

> I'm not sure if all those PRs can
> be merged into 3.10.1, or should be rather considered new features?

If they are bug fixes, then they should definitely be merged for
inclusion in 3.10.1 as soon as the 3.10 release is branched. (Just
like we'd normally do with bug fixes and point releases)

> In the
> former case I wouldn't postpone all the release schedule, but if the latter,
> that unexpected freeze should be IMHO thoroughly reconsidered.

Well, it's not unexpected. We're just all forgetful people :D

I still think the original idea has many merits, and don't think we
should discard it because of initial teething problems. The situation
as I see it:

1. we've got one set of serious known regressions, due to the snapping
threading changes. There's an open PR which may resolve these
(https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/31648), which still needs
reviewing, merging and widespread user testing before final release.
Or we can play it safe for 3.10.0 and revert the earlier threading
work, pushing it back for inclusion in 3.10.1. (playing it safe would
be my vote)

2. we've a bunch of open PRs for less critical issues, which, if we
are respecting the hard freeze as intended, should definitely be
delayed until 3.10.1

3. we should be pushing out a widespread call for user testing of the
"release candidate" (i.e. the nightly snapshot which happened after
hard freeze landed)

4. we need some policy about when a bug is considered critical enough
to break the hard freeze. (I'm pretty sure everyone considers their
own personal bugs as "critical", but again, if we are respecting the
hard freeze as original designed then it's only "oh my gosh we CANNOT
possibly push out a release with THIS in it!!!11!!" level bugs which
would be applicable)

1 & 3 need to be resolved ASAP, 4 can be discussed in a nice logical
manner during lead of up final release and after ;)

Nyall


>
> Regards,
> Borys
>
> [1] https://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/development/roadmap.html#feature-freeze
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Borys Jurgiel-4
Dnia wtorek, 15 października 2019 01:28:20 CEST Nyall Dawson pisze:

> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 19:35, Borys Jurgiel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Dnia poniedziałek, 14 października 2019 07:32:52 CEST Denis Rouzaud pisze:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I had a PR tagged as frozen this morning.
> > > I guess this is related to the concept of hard freeze. Can someone give
> > > more information on soft vs hard freeze? Any what is accepted to be
> > > merged?
> >
> > "Two weeks before the release a hard freeze is initiated, after which only
> > fixes to severe problems and regressions introduced after the feature
> > freeze are allowed in." - I found it accidentally in [1] this weekend and
> > postponed my PR for 3.10.1, apparently opening a Pandora's box...
>
> To be honest, I think most people forgot about this. I did too, until
> your comment prompted my memory!
>
> > I'm not sure if all those PRs can
> > be merged into 3.10.1, or should be rather considered new features?
>
> If they are bug fixes, then they should definitely be merged for
> inclusion in 3.10.1 as soon as the 3.10 release is branched. (Just
> like we'd normally do with bug fixes and point releases)
>
> > In the
> > former case I wouldn't postpone all the release schedule, but if the
> > latter, that unexpected freeze should be IMHO thoroughly reconsidered.
>
> Well, it's not unexpected. We're just all forgetful people :D
>
> I still think the original idea has many merits, and don't think we
> should discard it because of initial teething problems. The situation
> as I see it:

I guess we share the same (or almost the same) point of view: everything than
can wait for 3.10.1 should be postponed and merged 4 rather than 2 weeks
before release (btw. it's not clearly stated, but I assume the hard freeze
also applies to point releases - otherwise it won't make much sense)

It was more a question from my side if there are ready-to-merge PRs that can't
be assumed point release fixes. In that case we'd have a problem to resolve
and the lack of announcement was a partial reason.

It seems nobody complains, so it's not the case ;)

> 1. we've got one set of serious known regressions, due to the snapping
> threading changes. There's an open PR which may resolve these
> (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/31648), which still needs
> reviewing, merging and widespread user testing before final release.
> Or we can play it safe for 3.10.0 and revert the earlier threading
> work, pushing it back for inclusion in 3.10.1. (playing it safe would
> be my vote)

It was my main concern, and feel the same.

> 2. we've a bunch of open PRs for less critical issues, which, if we
> are respecting the hard freeze as intended, should definitely be
> delayed until 3.10.1

Exactly.

> 3. we should be pushing out a widespread call for user testing of the
> "release candidate" (i.e. the nightly snapshot which happened after
> hard freeze landed)

+1. I'll do it here in Poland today. We always have problems with encouraging
people to be early testers, so let's try harder.

> 4. we need some policy about when a bug is considered critical enough
> to break the hard freeze. (I'm pretty sure everyone considers their
> own personal bugs as "critical", but again, if we are respecting the
> hard freeze as original designed then it's only "oh my gosh we CANNOT
> possibly push out a release with THIS in it!!!11!!" level bugs which
> would be applicable)

No strong opinion here. If we apply the strict rule to every point release, we
have two weeks for bugfixes and two weeks for testing whether they didn't
break anything. I'm afraid that time may be lost, as who uses LTR nightlies?
;)

> 1 & 3 need to be resolved ASAP, 4 can be discussed in a nice logical
> manner during lead of up final release and after ;)

Ok, let's go!

Borys


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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Julien Cabieces
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson

Hi all,

> 1. we've got one set of serious known regressions, due to the snapping
> threading changes. There's an open PR which may resolve these
> (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/31648), which still needs
> reviewing, merging and widespread user testing before final release.
> Or we can play it safe for 3.10.0 and revert the earlier threading
> work, pushing it back for inclusion in 3.10.1. (playing it safe would
> be my vote)

Fair enough, if this work can land in 3.10.1, I will revert the initial
commit and push it back for 3.10.1 inclusion.

I think I misunderstand the frozen label, I thought it was to delay
merging in 3.12, not in 3.10.1 ?

Regards,
Julien
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Nyall Dawson
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 17:35, Julien Cabieces
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> > 1. we've got one set of serious known regressions, due to the snapping
> > threading changes. There's an open PR which may resolve these
> > (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/31648), which still needs
> > reviewing, merging and widespread user testing before final release.
> > Or we can play it safe for 3.10.0 and revert the earlier threading
> > work, pushing it back for inclusion in 3.10.1. (playing it safe would
> > be my vote)
>
> Fair enough, if this work can land in 3.10.1, I will revert the initial
> commit and push it back for 3.10.1 inclusion.
>
> I think I misunderstand the frozen label, I thought it was to delay
> merging in 3.12, not in 3.10.1 ?

It's used that way for features -- but otherwise it just means "don't merge!" :)

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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Régis Haubourg
Hi all,

I am really confused about the hard freeze period, probably because I
am not able to explain it to anyone. Some questions:

- is there any place where the hard freeze is documented for coders and users?

- What is the expected benefit if we don't get real life testers
focused on testing?

- Isn't it a Release Candidate version we-cant'-say-its-name ? Why so?

- It seems to bring a lot of confusion between. It can cascade delays
for backports to previous LTR, if we postpone fixes, then we miss a
point release time frame, that sounds really strange to me.

- I didn't see any public announcement, so I doubt we get more tester
now than before the hard freeze tag. Did I miss something?


At this point, it doesn't look like a 'teething' problem to me.
I really start thinking we are trying to invent something that does
not exists somewhere else. We do that to try to consolidate our fixes,
which is a very valid reason.
While the attempt is nice,  I think the real issue is that we lack
beta testers. Shouldn't we rediscuss of  beta / RC releases with
installers, together with public annoucement. It is more packaging and
communication work, but I thinks this is where the most efficient
efforts rely.

I really miss a clear vision to be able to advertise it to our
funders. We are ni hard time already just explaining the roadmap and
the need for them to get in sync with it. The more complicated system
we build, the more they tend to fall back to just "wait" other test
the future LTR versions for them.
I am really concerned because I in my whole country, I identify at max
2 GIS administrators involved in testing developpement versions.

I'd appreciate any effort of explaining the rationales and how-to-use
of this hard freeze thing.

Regards
Régis


Le jeu. 17 oct. 2019 à 09:39, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 17:35, Julien Cabieces
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > > 1. we've got one set of serious known regressions, due to the snapping
> > > threading changes. There's an open PR which may resolve these
> > > (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/31648), which still needs
> > > reviewing, merging and widespread user testing before final release.
> > > Or we can play it safe for 3.10.0 and revert the earlier threading
> > > work, pushing it back for inclusion in 3.10.1. (playing it safe would
> > > be my vote)
> >
> > Fair enough, if this work can land in 3.10.1, I will revert the initial
> > commit and push it back for 3.10.1 inclusion.
> >
> > I think I misunderstand the frozen label, I thought it was to delay
> > merging in 3.12, not in 3.10.1 ?
>
> It's used that way for features -- but otherwise it just means "don't merge!" :)
>
> Nyall
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
Hi

On 10/17/19 12:35 PM, Régis Haubourg wrote:
> While the attempt is nice,  I think the real issue is that we lack
> beta testers. Shouldn't we rediscuss of  beta / RC releases with
> installers, together with public annoucement.

I couldn't agree more on this.

What we really have is a lack of communication prior to .0 releases.

Is someone else motivated to sit together and work on a plan regarding
future release communication and beta releases?

Best regards

Matthias

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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Julien Cabieces
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson

Do we have to remove this feature from the Changelog? because it won't be
available in 3.10.0, but will be in 3.10.1?

> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 17:35, Julien Cabieces
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> > 1. we've got one set of serious known regressions, due to the snapping
>> > threading changes. There's an open PR which may resolve these
>> > (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/31648), which still needs
>> > reviewing, merging and widespread user testing before final release.
>> > Or we can play it safe for 3.10.0 and revert the earlier threading
>> > work, pushing it back for inclusion in 3.10.1. (playing it safe would
>> > be my vote)
>>
>> Fair enough, if this work can land in 3.10.1, I will revert the initial
>> commit and push it back for 3.10.1 inclusion.
>>
>> I think I misunderstand the frozen label, I thought it was to delay
>> merging in 3.12, not in 3.10.1 ?
>
> It's used that way for features -- but otherwise it just means "don't merge!" :)
>
> Nyall

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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Tim Sutton-6
In reply to this post by Matthias Kuhn 🌍
Hi



On 17 Oct 2019, at 12:11, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi

On 10/17/19 12:35 PM, Régis Haubourg wrote:
While the attempt is nice,  I think the real issue is that we lack
beta testers. Shouldn't we rediscuss of  beta / RC releases with
installers, together with public annoucement.

I couldn't agree more on this.

What we really have is a lack of communication prior to .0 releases.

Is someone else motivated to sit together and work on a plan regarding future release communication and beta releases?

Well in the future I think we will be able to use the in application feed to appeal to our existing users to please test the upcoming release. Perhaps Jürgen could add some magic to his release scripts to push out something to the feed when the freeze hits….?

Regards

Tim









Tim Sutton

Co-founder: Kartoza
Ex Project chair: QGIS.org

Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:

Desktop GIS programming services
Geospatial web development
GIS Training
Consulting Services

Skype: timlinux 
IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net

I'd love to connect. Here's my calendar link to make finding time easy.


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

Re: 3.10 hard freeze?

Matthias Kuhn 🌍

Hi Tim

On 10/17/19 5:14 PM, Tim Sutton wrote:
Hi

On 17 Oct 2019, at 12:11, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi

On 10/17/19 12:35 PM, Régis Haubourg wrote:
While the attempt is nice,  I think the real issue is that we lack
beta testers. Shouldn't we rediscuss of  beta / RC releases with
installers, together with public annoucement.

I couldn't agree more on this.

What we really have is a lack of communication prior to .0 releases.

Is someone else motivated to sit together and work on a plan regarding future release communication and beta releases?

Well in the future I think we will be able to use the in application feed to appeal to our existing users to please test the upcoming release. Perhaps Jürgen could add some magic to his release scripts to push out something to the feed when the freeze hits….?

I think this will be one piece in the puzzle.

Next to this I'd like to see other measures, like a release being labelled "QGIS LTR 3.12 Beta 1" on the splash screen and possibly other communicative measures by mail, blog, application news feed etc, like Qt does for example https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-5.14.0-beta1-released .

I think it would be best to have a small group to discuss possibilities and required efforts and come forward with a proposal.

Matthias


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