On 27/09/13 10:41, Alex Mandel wrote:
On 09/26/2013 10:54 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
Il 26/09/2013 23:16, MORREALE Jean Roc ha scritto:
It does or otherwise most users will never notice that a newer and different
package
is available
word can be spread through website, social networks, etc.
I agree releasing a fixed package with GRASS and SAGA is quite important, even
if for
a minority of users.
All the best.
My understanding of the discussion was that bugfix releases were tabled
(put on hold) until after the 2.0 release in order to let everyone work
on the 2.0 release. As others have mentioned on other threads a bugfix
release in the 2.0.x series would make a lot of sense to tackle all of
the regressions that people are finding.
We could set a deadline though, maybe a cutoff of one month since
release for bugs to tackle for bugfix and then a set time of several
months to try and fix them? Though with the packaging issue maybe it's
better to tackle the bugs in groups since that needs to get fixed soon.
I'm on the fence if purely packing fixes should get a number bump. It
might not be a bad idea to make it clear to end users that it's newer.
So Idea:
2.0.2 packaging fixes
2.0.3 in a couple months bugfix release
Thanks,
Alex
That whole discussion is actually only relevant for Windows, as I
perceive it. If you're using whatever repository with GNU/Linux or the
likes, packagers will bump package release numbers on packaging issues
(and other issues) and you'd get an updated package without doing a lot.
As Jürgen said, there is no point in having a new _QGIS release_ because
of packaging issues.
Volker
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
