Hi all -
I have a few comments regarding the possible removal of the "QGIS LTR
versions" ( as one of the original proponents for having a LTR version ) :
* The LTR version is the version that almost /all/ QGIS-using
/organisations/ in Denmark is using. That means 40 - 50 % of all
municipalities, regions (counties) and a number of state
departments. And a lot of private companies too. They use it mostly
in conjunction with some kind of "Web GIS" and have QGIS for the
hard and complex stuff. This market penetration is on par with ESRI
and better than MapInfo. As a treasurer of the QGIS Denmark User
group I've registered 85 Danish organisational members out of 260
members. And this number is growing. So there is a large and growing
number of QGIS users, that prefer the LTR version (actually the
vast majority if you count the individual users in the organisations) .
The yearly fee from these organisational members is in large part
the reason why QGIS Denmark has a Gold sponsorship of QGIS.
I don't know about other countries, but I /guess, /that preferences
in organisations is roughly the same: They prefer stability and as
few errors as possible. And thirdly new glitzy features
* I we ditch the LTR versions, I fear that an old nemesis will
resurface: That there is not /any /version of QGIS that is really
stable: A small irritating bug in ver. x will be solved in ver.
x+1. However ver. x+1 contains another small irritating bug, that
will be solved in version x+2 ....
I know that the development process for QGIS has evolved
tremendously the last couple of years. However, I still remember the
"bad old days" with "no responsibility" for killing bugs in existing
code caused by introduction of new code.
* In my experience, the 1 - year period for LTR is the shortest period
acceptable for organisations. They don't want to repackage QGIS
every 6 months and certainly not every 4 months. You might even let
the period be 1.5- 2 years instead of 1 year.
* The quagmire of ver. 3.16... Isn't it a combination of a relatively
old version of QGIS fine tuned to a set of support libraries, where
the support libraries gets upgraded "an masse" because OsGeo4W gets
upgraded from v1 to v2.; SIP gets upgraded from v4 to v6. And the
proj library goes through several upgrades from v4 to v8 ? I my
perspective that's a receipt for "The perfect storm". If it can't be
fixed, then freeze it at 3.16.11 and fast-promote ver. 3.22 as LTR,
perhaps with a big warning sign on it.
This it not a critique of the upgrade process. Every piece of
software, including supporting libraries has to be upgraded from
time to time. However I count 3 major upgrades of libraries on the
same time
NB! Just read Jürgen's posting on ver. 3.16.14 being released on
friday. If it works, then that's solves the ver. 3.16 issues for me.
* I know, bug squashing is nobody's favourite programming discipline.
Especially if you not are paid for doing it. Hence the need for bug
squashin by payment. So what about trying to reach out to the large
(or small) sponsors and ask them if they could put some extra coins
in the pot earmarked for LTR ? I can't solely speak for QGIS Denmark
User group, but I would certainly discuss this problem with other
members of the board and eventually the general assembly. And we
have some contacts with the other QGIS usergroups i Scandinavia. The
Swiss usergroup could for example talk with the german usergroup (I
know the problem is not based on language, but sometimes it's easier
to promote an idea with people talking roughly the same language)
So how much money are we talking about ?
Whatever that's decided regarding the LTR, I personally still will be a
staunch supporter of QGIS. But please don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater without due consideration and without trying alternative
solutions.
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
Bo Victor Thomsen
Den 16-11-2021 kl. 09:22 skrev Alessandro Pasotti:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:50 AM Marco Bernasocchi <ma...@qgis.org> wrote:
Hi Anita, Hi Nyall, Hi All
I think that it is a good idea to allocate the first half hour
(and more if needed) in tonight's budget meeting to this very
pressing subject.
Nyall, thanks a lot for your analysis, we'll use it as discussion
base.
I extended the meeting invitation from 18:00 to 19:30.
See you later
Marco
Hi,
thinking about how to possibly prevent this to happen again I think
that the manual testing cycles as proposed with
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2020-December/009186.html
could help in identifying biggest issues before a release.
I think we should consider the possibility of investing in that direction.
Kind regards.
--
Alessandro Pasotti
QCooperative: www.qcooperative.net <https://www.qcooperative.net>
ItOpen: www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info:https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe:https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
