As I said before, it's +1 from me to slow down (http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Is-the-new-release-schedule-a-success-td5213659.html).
If the devs need more end users to test, then changing to a release every six months, LTR every two years, would help. However, how would the devs feel about patching LTRs for twice the duration they do now, and for one extra non-LTR in between each? To me it sounds like significantly more work to keep backporting for two years instead of one. I don't think the Ubuntu comparison holds (in ignorance) because I presume they have many, many more end users who test. I go back to my own experience. I'm part of a partnership of 15 organizations, several of whom have switched to QGIS, with more on the way. I believe that what holds organizations like ours back from migrating is a perceived lack of robustness - as witnessed by the 2.8 and 2.10 immediate patches - and lack of documentation, for which I know there is an ongoing effort to improve. Another angle: we commissioned a QGIS plugin we needed before we could migrate to QGIS. It would cost us less if we only had to get that updated every two years to be compatible with an LTR, rather than every year. -- View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Release-schedule-discussion-again-tp5229448p5229581.html Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer