Re: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

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

Re: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

Nyall Dawson
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From another standpoint, we still have 102 Q3 regressions:
> https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?query_id=27
> From a quick scroll, I suspect at least some of them are not
> particularly relevant, but a thorough analysis is needed.

Yeah, a quick flick through revealed a very mixed lot -- many sound
familiar and likely have already been fixed, some I know are still
outstanding, and many waiting feedback for too long and should be just
closed.

I guess my question is (if we do delay the 2.x EOL as a result of
these) is how many regressions are "acceptable" before EOL? We'll
never get this to 0 -- there's been too many "by design" changes to
make a zero regression target feasible (See obligatory xkcd ref:
https://xkcd.com/1172/).

> I'm not sure whether it will be acceptable for our users to release an
> LTR with these regression, but this could be a way of putting pressure
> on donors to help us fix them.

Big +1 to this. If I'm being blunt, I think if a bug is a blocker to
an organisation moving to 3.4, it's ultimately going to sit with them
to get it fixed (or to sponsor QGIS and support the funded bug hunts).
(Or, perhaps, in the case of regressions in features an organisation
originally funded -- it's their responsibility to put pressure on the
original developer they paid for the feature to fix it and protect it
with suitable unit tests -- but that's between them and their original
developer).

Nyall

> A big +1 for the blog post.
> All the best.
> --
> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
> QGIS.ORG Chair:
> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
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: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

Nyall Dawson
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:

> thanks for raising this important point. IMHO we cannot really dismiss
> 2.18 until qgis server 3 is ready for production. I understand we are
> very close, I'd urge server people to update us on the current situation
> and needs. If this is feasible, I'd be in favour of doing a last effort
> (through dedicated crowdfunding or with internal qgis resources, if
> available) to get 3 ready and dismiss 2.18 as planned.
> From another standpoint, we still have 102 Q3 regressions:
> https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?query_id=27
> From a quick scroll, I suspect at least some of them are not
> particularly relevant, but a thorough analysis is needed.
> I'm not sure whether it will be acceptable for our users to release an
> LTR with these regression, but this could be a way of putting pressure
> on donors to help us fix them.

The other thing to keep in mind is that 2.18 being EOLed doesn't
equate to disabling it. Any existing setup will continue to work as it
has with 2.18.28 -- it just means there'll be no more officially
supported releases or bug fixes. But tagging it EOL and moving on
won't immediately break any existing installs overnight :)

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: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

pcav
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
Hi Nyall, others

On 27/12/18 22:58, Nyall Dawson wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From another standpoint, we still have 102 Q3 regressions:
>> https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?query_id=27
>> From a quick scroll, I suspect at least some of them are not
>> particularly relevant, but a thorough analysis is needed.
>
> Yeah, a quick flick through revealed a very mixed lot -- many sound
> familiar and likely have already been fixed, some I know are still
> outstanding, and many waiting feedback for too long and should be just
> closed.

I think a triaging would be useful here to have a more accurate picture.
Anyone willing to do it and report back?

>
> I guess my question is (if we do delay the 2.x EOL as a result of
> these) is how many regressions are "acceptable" before EOL? We'll
> never get this to 0 -- there's been too many "by design" changes to
> make a zero regression target feasible (See obligatory xkcd ref:
> https://xkcd.com/1172/).
>
>> I'm not sure whether it will be acceptable for our users to release an
>> LTR with these regression, but this could be a way of putting pressure
>> on donors to help us fix them.
>
> Big +1 to this. If I'm being blunt, I think if a bug is a blocker to
> an organisation moving to 3.4, it's ultimately going to sit with them
> to get it fixed (or to sponsor QGIS and support the funded bug hunts).
> (Or, perhaps, in the case of regressions in features an organisation
> originally funded -- it's their responsibility to put pressure on the
> original developer they paid for the feature to fix it and protect it
> with suitable unit tests -- but that's between them and their original
> developer).

Agreed. It's a matter of communicating properly to users. We have time
to write a blog post and circulating it well before EOL.
Thanks.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
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: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

Mathieu Pellerin
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
Jumping in the discussion to offer thoughts on the bigger picture here: while we have a few dozen regressions filed against 3.4 LTR, it's also true that 3.4 LTR has _countless_ fixes and refinements - not referring to new features here - when compared to 2.18 which adds a big amount of positive in the balance here.

Big +1 to using the near EOL of 2.X to advocate for some funding to address the remaining regressions, and a huge -1 to the idea of extending the lifespan of 2.18 LTR.

Beyond the feasibility issues of a zero regression target, IMHO we would simply make ourselves and our users a disservice. Beyond the platform improvements of (Qt5, Python3, etc.) and the above-mentioned fixes and refinements 3.X, which users can safely embrace as of 3.4.3, the reality of the 2.18.X branch is that the code is so divergent from master that it's essentially "retired" code. Most of the fixes committed to master / 3.4 LTR can't be straightforwardly backported to 2.18.X anymore. EOL for 2.18 is simply mirroring a code reality as of the end of 2018.

Math


On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:58 AM Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From another standpoint, we still have 102 Q3 regressions:
> https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?query_id=27
> From a quick scroll, I suspect at least some of them are not
> particularly relevant, but a thorough analysis is needed.

Yeah, a quick flick through revealed a very mixed lot -- many sound
familiar and likely have already been fixed, some I know are still
outstanding, and many waiting feedback for too long and should be just
closed.

I guess my question is (if we do delay the 2.x EOL as a result of
these) is how many regressions are "acceptable" before EOL? We'll
never get this to 0 -- there's been too many "by design" changes to
make a zero regression target feasible (See obligatory xkcd ref:
https://xkcd.com/1172/).

> I'm not sure whether it will be acceptable for our users to release an
> LTR with these regression, but this could be a way of putting pressure
> on donors to help us fix them.

Big +1 to this. If I'm being blunt, I think if a bug is a blocker to
an organisation moving to 3.4, it's ultimately going to sit with them
to get it fixed (or to sponsor QGIS and support the funded bug hunts).
(Or, perhaps, in the case of regressions in features an organisation
originally funded -- it's their responsibility to put pressure on the
original developer they paid for the feature to fix it and protect it
with suitable unit tests -- but that's between them and their original
developer).

Nyall

> A big +1 for the blog post.
> All the best.
> --
> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
> QGIS.ORG Chair:
> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
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: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

Filipe Dias-2
In reply to this post by pcav
Hi,

After QGIS 2.18 reaches EOL are there any plans to keep it available in a repository or via flatpak/snap app? I have moved to QGIS 3 but I still have to maintain QGIS 2.18 projects that are connected to Lizmap. Currently, I switch back and forth between versions using the official repositories, but once 2.18 reaches EOL, I'm guessing that will no longer be possible. 

Cheers
F

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:46 AM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Nyall, others

On 27/12/18 22:58, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From another standpoint, we still have 102 Q3 regressions:
>> https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?query_id=27
>> From a quick scroll, I suspect at least some of them are not
>> particularly relevant, but a thorough analysis is needed.
>
> Yeah, a quick flick through revealed a very mixed lot -- many sound
> familiar and likely have already been fixed, some I know are still
> outstanding, and many waiting feedback for too long and should be just
> closed.

I think a triaging would be useful here to have a more accurate picture.
Anyone willing to do it and report back?
>
> I guess my question is (if we do delay the 2.x EOL as a result of
> these) is how many regressions are "acceptable" before EOL? We'll
> never get this to 0 -- there's been too many "by design" changes to
> make a zero regression target feasible (See obligatory xkcd ref:
> https://xkcd.com/1172/).
>
>> I'm not sure whether it will be acceptable for our users to release an
>> LTR with these regression, but this could be a way of putting pressure
>> on donors to help us fix them.
>
> Big +1 to this. If I'm being blunt, I think if a bug is a blocker to
> an organisation moving to 3.4, it's ultimately going to sit with them
> to get it fixed (or to sponsor QGIS and support the funded bug hunts).
> (Or, perhaps, in the case of regressions in features an organisation
> originally funded -- it's their responsibility to put pressure on the
> original developer they paid for the feature to fix it and protect it
> with suitable unit tests -- but that's between them and their original
> developer).

Agreed. It's a matter of communicating properly to users. We have time
to write a blog post and circulating it well before EOL.
Thanks.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
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: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

pcav
In reply to this post by pcav
Hi all

On 28/12/18 08:45, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

> I think a triaging would be useful here to have a more accurate picture.
> Anyone willing to do it and report back?

I have checked them, and I see Nyall has also checked and possibly fixed
some. I agree the while several are real annoyances, possibly blocker
for some user cases, none can be seen as a release blocker.
Many need feedback, without which several can be closed.
All the best.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
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: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

Régis Haubourg -2
In reply to this post by Filipe Dias-2
Hi,

sorry to be late. Can anyone point me to the issues of QGIS server
making you say it is not ready for production?

OGC tests are running every night and work fine. I see only one issue
with high priority affecting QGIS > 3.0 versions.

Cheers and happy new year!

Régis

Le 28/12/2018 à 10:29, Paolo Cavallini a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> On 28/12/18 10:10, Filipe Dias wrote:
>
>> After QGIS 2.18 reaches EOL are there any plans to keep it available in
>> a repository or via flatpak/snap app? I have moved to QGIS 3 but I still
>> have to maintain QGIS 2.18 projects that are connected to Lizmap.
> I think this is a widespread issue, and a blocker for many. I think the
> proper way to solve it is to get QGIS 3 sever ready for production.
> How far are we from this?
> All the best.

--
Open Source GIS Expert / Water management

mail: [hidden email]
tél: 0033 184 257 870
---------------------------------
http://oslandia.com/

OSLANDIA IS AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY SPECIALIZED IN GIS ARCHITECTURE. WE
PROVIDE SERVICE ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR WHICH WE ARE EDITORS OR
RECOGNIZED EXPERTS.


_______________________________________________
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: [Qgis-psc] QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

pcav
Hi Régis,

On 28/12/18 17:48, Régis Haubourg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry to be late. Can anyone point me to the issues of QGIS server
> making you say it is not ready for production?
>
> OGC tests are running every night and work fine. I see only one issue
> with high priority affecting QGIS > 3.0 versions.

In fact I see only 61 issues:
https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?category_id=49
of which only 20 apply to 3.*. Régis, could you please have a look and
close the obsolete ones (there are even 6 pre 2.18)? Do you see any
blocker on the list?
So apparently it is in a good shape. The main issue therefore moves to
the clients: which ones are ready for QGIS 3? What is the expected
release time for a Q3-savy version? It would be great if at least the
most popular ones would be rady by the 2.18 EOL.
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
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: QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

Uros Preloznik
Hi,

I wish to point to couple of issues regarding WFS for latest QGIS Server that I think need to be fixed before it can be ready for production (next LTR):

1. DescribeFeatureType not following TYPENAME parameter

2. Can't reset numeric field using WFS Update

3. WFS issue using the EXP_FILTER parameter


best regards,
Uroš


V V pet., 28. dec. 2018 ob 18:12 je oseba Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> napisala:
Hi Régis,

On 28/12/18 17:48, Régis Haubourg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry to be late. Can anyone point me to the issues of QGIS server
> making you say it is not ready for production?
>
> OGC tests are running every night and work fine. I see only one issue
> with high priority affecting QGIS > 3.0 versions.

In fact I see only 61 issues:
https://issues.qgis.org/projects/qgis/issues?category_id=49
of which only 20 apply to 3.*. Régis, could you please have a look and
close the obsolete ones (there are even 6 pre 2.18)? Do you see any
blocker on the list?
So apparently it is in a good shape. The main issue therefore moves to
the clients: which ones are ready for QGIS 3? What is the expected
release time for a Q3-savy version? It would be great if at least the
most popular ones would be rady by the 2.18 EOL.
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
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: QGIS 2.18 EOL approaching?

Jeremy Palmer-3
This WFS regression here is also pretty bad; https://issues.qgis.org/issues/20808

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:36 PM Uros Preloznik <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I wish to point to couple of issues regarding WFS for latest QGIS Server that I think need to be fixed before it can be ready for production (next LTR):

1. DescribeFeatureType not following TYPENAME parameter

2. Can't reset numeric field using WFS Update

3. WFS issue using the EXP_FILTER parameter


best regards,
Uroš



_______________________________________________
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