But as a FINAL 2.x release it would make sense to be a LTR, wouldn't
it. To give time before moving to 3.x.
*Worth Lutz*
On 1/20/2016 4:28 AM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
Just an idea: what about a 2.16 being an LTR rather than the 2.14 ?
Counter-argument. This breaks the only newly established LTR release cycle
which is cited as very attractive to corporate users.
--
View this message in context:
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Help-us-plan-for-QGIS-3-0-tp5245740p5246247.html
Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
