On 26.06.2014 16:07, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
Hi Nathan,
[Take 25]
On Thu, 26. Jun 2014 at 22:32:01 +1000, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
No. Just like with 2.2.
I think this is a real mistake and bad PR for the project. If we want to
do it like this we need to refine out release plan better to have things
line up nice and smooth so people get what they expect.
Why again a discussion on the last minute? "The plans has been on display..."
The road map tells users what to expect. The announcement told users what to
expect. If they still expect something else, that's their choice. But IMHO
it's nothing that we need to take responsibility for.
The current plan is easy. Just two dates: freeze and release. development
before the freeze, testing, fixing, translating, release preparations after the
freeze, packaging and new the next development cycle starts in parallel after
the release.
I think that's easy enough even without a colorful layout. Although the
roadmap is hard to find on the website (but it's nowhere near alpha centauri).
The user isn't us, we can build from source, they can not, nor should they.
BTW the users are free to build from source, that's their choice, too. I think
most of our users are pretty smart (and good looking) ;)
I would bet that most people building from sources are not the ones
waiting for an announced release.
I agree with Nathan that it's a real bad idea to announce a release if
people can't use it.
If packaging is done during the weekend, I don't see a real problem to
wait two days before annoucement.
I would say that having the windows packages ready is a minimum before
annoucement.
Although, I agree it's a pity that we discuss 1 day to annoucement.
This should be polished for next time, and I would vote for a more
detailed calendar with
* Feature freeze
* String freeze
* Code + Translation freeze
* Packaging (at least win)
* Release
Cheers,
Denis
Jürgen
PS: "This must be Thursday" - and I put release on fridays intentionally to
have the weekend for packaging...
PPS: I wanted to tackle #10703 instead of this - you could have done #10589 ;)
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
