+1 To everything Bo Victor says, thanks for covering everything I wanted
to say!
In training / education / teaching (in my experience) materials are
usually written for the latest LTR versions, so they don't need to be
updated too frequently.
Best wishes,
Nick.
On 16/11/2021 11:00, Bo Victor Thomsen wrote:
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
--
Nick Bearman
Tel / WhatsApp / Signal: +44 (0) 7717745715
n...@geospatialtrainingsolutions.co.uk
My working pattern is probably not the same as your working pattern, therefore
you may get emails from me outside of normal working hours. Please do not feel
any
pressure to respond outside of your own working pattern.
_______________________________________________
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
