Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Matthias Kuhn]

Thanks everyone.

I opened a Loomio vote for the core developers to get a clear picture of
how we proceed with the release of 3.4.

Regards, Matthias


On 09/07/2018 01:14 PM, Régis Haubourg wrote:
> > This mostly affects the small number of developers who do the job of
> reviewing pull requests, just before the release they have the double
> burden of finalizing their own pull requests and reviewing other pull
> requests which tend to land also just a couple of days/hours before
> freeze
>
> That's why I said we can't refuse you anything BTW :)
>
> > I would propose to raise a motion after the release of 3.4 so we can
> review and discuss them with enough time for everyone to raise their
> voice. Does that work for you?
>
> Perfect!
>
>
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Régis Haubourg]

> This mostly affects the small number of developers who do the job of
reviewing pull requests, just before the release they have the double
burden of finalizing their own pull requests and reviewing other pull
requests which tend to land also just a couple of days/hours before freeze

That's why I said we can't refuse you anything BTW :)

> I would propose to raise a motion after the release of 3.4 so we can
review and discuss them with enough time for everyone to raise their voice.
Does that work for you?

Perfect!


Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 10:06, Matthias Kuhn  a écrit :

> Hi Régis,
>
> I see the point, thanks for raising this. The source of the freeze
> exemption is that last-minute pull requests were merged without much review
> just to get it in. In the end, this often resulted in worse code quality
> because no in-depth review had been done and only issues that surfaced and
> were connected to a given PR would actually be fixed. This mostly affects
> the small number of developers who do the job of reviewing pull requests,
> just before the release they have the double burden of finalizing their own
> pull requests and reviewing other pull requests which tend to land also
> just a couple of days/hours before freeze. The exemption on request for a
> selection of PRs with good reasoning is an approach to tackle this dilemma,
> which so far (to my knowledge) was not under a broader discussion which I
> interpreted as silent agreement.
>
> Alternatives to this approach exist, so if this is deemed a problem and
> different approaches are on the table, I would propose to raise a motion
> after the release of 3.4 so we can review and discuss them with enough time
> for everyone to raise their voice. Does that work for you?
>
> Best regards
> Matthias
> On 09/06/2018 07:30 PM, Régis Haubourg wrote:
>
> Well, my point is that in exceptional cases, that could be of course
> discussed, but not at every release.
> Régis
>
> Le jeu. 6 sept. 2018 à 18:38, Paolo Cavallini  a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi Regis,
>> so in short your proposal is no exemption?
>> All the best.
>>
>> Il 6 settembre 2018 18:21:29 CEST, "Régis Haubourg" <
>> regis.haubo...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> maybe from a voter point of view, this is uncomfortable to vote for last
>>> minute exemptions, as this does not have such sense from a democratic
>>> perspective.
>>> Voting is essential on strategic issues, but voting on "do you want this
>>> now, or within 4 months" may not appear so important - except if you funded
>>> the feature yourself.
>>>
>>> As a user, I'd really want the two mentioned features for the next LTR,
>>> I've wanted them for so long. But in the other hand, I think we should
>>> really not end into a systematic feature freeze exemption process.
>>>
>>> I know QGIS is a do-ocraty, and we owe so much to our top contributors
>>> that we can't refuse them anything, hum... professionally speaking I mean:-)
>>>
>>> However having work still going on while in feature freeze does not help
>>> in dedicating fully to bugfixing and testing.
>>>
>>> Last point, some teams have been rescheduling hard and sometimes
>>> canceling deserved vacations to respect feature freeze deadline. Just to be
>>> clear, this doesn't concern Oslandia this time, but this happened in the
>>> past.
>>> Seen from this perspective, I'd like we don't repeat this at every
>>> release. Customer usually can wait for 4 months more.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Régis
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 09:13, Matthias Kuhn  a
>>> écrit :
>>>
 Thanks Paolo

 On 09/05/2018 09:02 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
 > Hi Matthias
 >
 >
 > Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
 >> I think the approach to let voting members decide as we did last time
 >> (https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions)
 works fine.
 >>
 >>  * This committee includes several technical members
 >>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on self-evaluation of
 knowledge
 > it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be particularly stressed in
 > the voting question, otherwise people will feel obliged to vote (which
 > often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the implication.

 Yes, we can state that explicitly.

 In the past, e.g. here
 https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized we had
 33% participation. Not sure what the reason for abstaining was, one
 assumption would be that many did not feel comfortable enough to make a
 decision. Or pure lazyness or disinterest ;P

 Regards


 ___
 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
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sorry for being short
>>
>
> --
> Matthias Kuhn
> matth...@opengis.ch
> +41

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi Régis,

I see the point, thanks for raising this. The source of the freeze
exemption is that last-minute pull requests were merged without much
review just to get it in. In the end, this often resulted in worse code
quality because no in-depth review had been done and only issues that
surfaced and were connected to a given PR would actually be fixed. This
mostly affects the small number of developers who do the job of
reviewing pull requests, just before the release they have the double
burden of finalizing their own pull requests and reviewing other pull
requests which tend to land also just a couple of days/hours before
freeze. The exemption on request for a selection of PRs with good
reasoning is an approach to tackle this dilemma, which so far (to my
knowledge) was not under a broader discussion which I interpreted as
silent agreement.

Alternatives to this approach exist, so if this is deemed a problem and
different approaches are on the table, I would propose to raise a motion
after the release of 3.4 so we can review and discuss them with enough
time for everyone to raise their voice. Does that work for you?

Best regards
Matthias

On 09/06/2018 07:30 PM, Régis Haubourg wrote:
> Well, my point is that in exceptional cases, that could be of course
> discussed, but not at every release. 
> Régis
>
> Le jeu. 6 sept. 2018 à 18:38, Paolo Cavallini  > a écrit :
>
> Hi Regis,
> so in short your proposal is no exemption?
> All the best.
>
> Il 6 settembre 2018 18:21:29 CEST, "Régis Haubourg"
> mailto:regis.haubo...@gmail.com>> ha
> scritto:
>
> Hi all,
> maybe from a voter point of view, this is uncomfortable to
> vote for last minute exemptions, as this does not have such
> sense from a democratic perspective.
> Voting is essential on strategic issues, but voting on "do you
> want this now, or within 4 months" may not appear so important
> - except if you funded the feature yourself.
>
> As a user, I'd really want the two mentioned features for the
> next LTR, I've wanted them for so long. But in the other hand,
> I think we should really not end into a systematic feature
> freeze exemption process.
>
> I know QGIS is a do-ocraty, and we owe so much to our top
> contributors that we can't refuse them anything, hum...
> professionally speaking I mean:-)
>
> However having work still going on while in feature freeze
> does not help in dedicating fully to bugfixing and testing.
>
> Last point, some teams have been rescheduling hard and
> sometimes canceling deserved vacations to respect feature
> freeze deadline. Just to be clear, this doesn't concern
> Oslandia this time, but this happened in the past.
> Seen from this perspective, I'd like we don't repeat this at
> every release. Customer usually can wait for 4 months more.
>
> Regards,
> Régis
>
>
> Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 09:13, Matthias Kuhn
> mailto:matth...@opengis.ch>> a écrit :
>
> Thanks Paolo
>
> On 09/05/2018 09:02 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> > Hi Matthias
> >
> >
> > Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
> >> I think the approach to let voting members decide as we
> did last time
> >>
> (https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions)
> works fine.
> >>
> >>  * This committee includes several technical members
> >>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on
> self-evaluation of knowledge
> > it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be
> particularly stressed in
> > the voting question, otherwise people will feel obliged
> to vote (which
> > often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the implication.
>
> Yes, we can state that explicitly.
>
> In the past, e.g. here
> https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized
> we had
> 33% participation. Not sure what the reason for abstaining
> was, one
> assumption would be that many did not feel comfortable
> enough to make a
> decision. Or pure lazyness or disinterest ;P
>
> Regards
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
> -- 
> Sorry for being short
>

-- 
Matthias Kuhn
matth...@

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Régis Haubourg]

Well, my point is that in exceptional cases, that could be of course
discussed, but not at every release.
Régis

Le jeu. 6 sept. 2018 à 18:38, Paolo Cavallini  a
écrit :

> Hi Regis,
> so in short your proposal is no exemption?
> All the best.
>
> Il 6 settembre 2018 18:21:29 CEST, "Régis Haubourg" <
> regis.haubo...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> maybe from a voter point of view, this is uncomfortable to vote for last
>> minute exemptions, as this does not have such sense from a democratic
>> perspective.
>> Voting is essential on strategic issues, but voting on "do you want this
>> now, or within 4 months" may not appear so important - except if you funded
>> the feature yourself.
>>
>> As a user, I'd really want the two mentioned features for the next LTR,
>> I've wanted them for so long. But in the other hand, I think we should
>> really not end into a systematic feature freeze exemption process.
>>
>> I know QGIS is a do-ocraty, and we owe so much to our top contributors
>> that we can't refuse them anything, hum... professionally speaking I mean:-)
>>
>> However having work still going on while in feature freeze does not help
>> in dedicating fully to bugfixing and testing.
>>
>> Last point, some teams have been rescheduling hard and sometimes
>> canceling deserved vacations to respect feature freeze deadline. Just to be
>> clear, this doesn't concern Oslandia this time, but this happened in the
>> past.
>> Seen from this perspective, I'd like we don't repeat this at every
>> release. Customer usually can wait for 4 months more.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Régis
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 09:13, Matthias Kuhn  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Thanks Paolo
>>>
>>> On 09/05/2018 09:02 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>>> > Hi Matthias
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>>> >> I think the approach to let voting members decide as we did last time
>>> >> (https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions) works
>>> fine.
>>> >>
>>> >>  * This committee includes several technical members
>>> >>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on self-evaluation of
>>> knowledge
>>> > it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be particularly stressed in
>>> > the voting question, otherwise people will feel obliged to vote (which
>>> > often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the implication.
>>>
>>> Yes, we can state that explicitly.
>>>
>>> In the past, e.g. here
>>> https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized we had
>>> 33% participation. Not sure what the reason for abstaining was, one
>>> assumption would be that many did not feel comfortable enough to make a
>>> decision. Or pure lazyness or disinterest ;P
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
> --
> Sorry for being short
>
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi Regis,
so in short your proposal is no exemption?
All the best.

Il 6 settembre 2018 18:21:29 CEST, "Régis Haubourg"  
ha scritto:
>Hi all,
>maybe from a voter point of view, this is uncomfortable to vote for
>last
>minute exemptions, as this does not have such sense from a democratic
>perspective.
>Voting is essential on strategic issues, but voting on "do you want
>this
>now, or within 4 months" may not appear so important - except if you
>funded
>the feature yourself.
>
>As a user, I'd really want the two mentioned features for the next LTR,
>I've wanted them for so long. But in the other hand, I think we should
>really not end into a systematic feature freeze exemption process.
>
>I know QGIS is a do-ocraty, and we owe so much to our top contributors
>that
>we can't refuse them anything, hum... professionally speaking I mean:-)
>
>However having work still going on while in feature freeze does not
>help in
>dedicating fully to bugfixing and testing.
>
>Last point, some teams have been rescheduling hard and sometimes
>canceling
>deserved vacations to respect feature freeze deadline. Just to be
>clear,
>this doesn't concern Oslandia this time, but this happened in the past.
>Seen from this perspective, I'd like we don't repeat this at every
>release.
>Customer usually can wait for 4 months more.
>
>Regards,
>Régis
>
>
>Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 09:13, Matthias Kuhn  a
>écrit :
>
>> Thanks Paolo
>>
>> On 09/05/2018 09:02 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>> > Hi Matthias
>> >
>> >
>> > Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>> >> I think the approach to let voting members decide as we did last
>time
>> >> (https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions)
>works
>> fine.
>> >>
>> >>  * This committee includes several technical members
>> >>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on self-evaluation of
>> knowledge
>> > it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be particularly stressed
>in
>> > the voting question, otherwise people will feel obliged to vote
>(which
>> > often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the implication.
>>
>> Yes, we can state that explicitly.
>>
>> In the past, e.g. here
>> https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized we
>had
>> 33% participation. Not sure what the reason for abstaining was, one
>> assumption would be that many did not feel comfortable enough to make
>a
>> decision. Or pure lazyness or disinterest ;P
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

-- 
Sorry for being short___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Régis Haubourg]

Hi all,
maybe from a voter point of view, this is uncomfortable to vote for last
minute exemptions, as this does not have such sense from a democratic
perspective.
Voting is essential on strategic issues, but voting on "do you want this
now, or within 4 months" may not appear so important - except if you funded
the feature yourself.

As a user, I'd really want the two mentioned features for the next LTR,
I've wanted them for so long. But in the other hand, I think we should
really not end into a systematic feature freeze exemption process.

I know QGIS is a do-ocraty, and we owe so much to our top contributors that
we can't refuse them anything, hum... professionally speaking I mean:-)

However having work still going on while in feature freeze does not help in
dedicating fully to bugfixing and testing.

Last point, some teams have been rescheduling hard and sometimes canceling
deserved vacations to respect feature freeze deadline. Just to be clear,
this doesn't concern Oslandia this time, but this happened in the past.
Seen from this perspective, I'd like we don't repeat this at every release.
Customer usually can wait for 4 months more.

Regards,
Régis


Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 09:13, Matthias Kuhn  a écrit :

> Thanks Paolo
>
> On 09/05/2018 09:02 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> > Hi Matthias
> >
> >
> > Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
> >> I think the approach to let voting members decide as we did last time
> >> (https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions) works
> fine.
> >>
> >>  * This committee includes several technical members
> >>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on self-evaluation of
> knowledge
> > it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be particularly stressed in
> > the voting question, otherwise people will feel obliged to vote (which
> > often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the implication.
>
> Yes, we can state that explicitly.
>
> In the past, e.g. here
> https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized we had
> 33% participation. Not sure what the reason for abstaining was, one
> assumption would be that many did not feel comfortable enough to make a
> decision. Or pure lazyness or disinterest ;P
>
> Regards
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Matthias Kuhn]

Thanks Paolo

On 09/05/2018 09:02 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Hi Matthias
>
>
> Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>> I think the approach to let voting members decide as we did last time
>> (https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions) works fine.
>>
>>  * This committee includes several technical members
>>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on self-evaluation of knowledge
> it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be particularly stressed in
> the voting question, otherwise people will feel obliged to vote (which
> often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the implication.

Yes, we can state that explicitly.

In the past, e.g. here
https://www.loomio.org/p/BPc3Wj6l/duplicate-feature-redigitized we had
33% participation. Not sure what the reason for abstaining was, one
assumption would be that many did not feel comfortable enough to make a
decision. Or pure lazyness or disinterest ;P

Regards


___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi Matthias


Il 09/05/2018 08:35 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>
> I think the approach to let voting members decide as we did last time
> (https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions) works fine.
>
>  * This committee includes several technical members
>  * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on self-evaluation of knowledge
it makes sense to me - perhaps this should be particularly stressed in
the voting question, otherwise people will feel obliged to vote (which
often means +1) even when they cannot grasp the implication.
All the best.

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi Paolo

On 09/05/2018 07:52 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Il 09/05/2018 07:13 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>> Feature freeze is coming end of next week with a freeze window of 6
>> weeks. In the past, we have regularly granted freeze exemptions to
>> some features upon request.
>>
>> I think it would be good to know, what we can expect this time to
>> decide on what is granted and then send them over to Loomio for review.
>>
>> Myself, I would like to include Geometry Validation
>> (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/131). I
>> estimate will require about 1 to maximum 2 more week to get it into a
>> mergeable state, which will still leave us with 4-5 weeks of bugfixing
>> time for this code. One part of it is, it will revisit some of the
>> geometry checker code which is corrected for threading and other
>> issues, so that can already be seen as "bugfixing of existing code"
>> that will land as part of it.
>>
> thanks for this request - this is indeed a gray area that has caused
> some discomfort in the past, so it will be good to have more clear
> guidelines. I think it will be difficult to carve them in stone however;
> some ad hoc evaluation will be necessary.
> Maybe we can ask three questions:
> * should we set a hard limit for freeze (e.g. no exemption in the last X
> weeks), or we can decide anytime based on the merit of the code submitted?
> * whom should decide on this? I personally think core developers should
> have a much heavier weight in this decision than PSC
> * based on which (more or less objective) criteria? This could include
> isolation of code,  i.e. likelihood that it will break other parts,
> importance of the new feature for the majority of users, quality of the
> code, commitment to promptly fix bugs.
> All the best.
>

I think the approach to let voting members decide as we did last time
(https://www.loomio.org/d/38Aiya0q/3-0-soft-freeze-exemptions) works fine.

 * This committee includes several technical members
 * Everyone is free to vote or not, based on self-evaluation of knowledge
 * Particular questions concerning the mentioned gray area can be
formulated on a case-by-case basis

Matthias

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Saber Razmjooei]

In that case, would it be possible to postpone the feature freeze by 2
weeks and set it as a hard(ish) deadline?
Cheers
Saber


On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 06:56, Nyall Dawson  wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 15:13, Matthias Kuhn  wrote:
> >
> > Feature freeze is coming end of next week with a freeze window of 6
> weeks. In the past, we have regularly granted freeze exemptions to some
> features upon request.
> >
> > I think it would be good to know, what we can expect this time to decide
> on what is granted and then send them over to Loomio for review.
> >
> > Myself, I would like to include Geometry Validation (
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/131). I
> estimate will require about 1 to maximum 2 more week to get it into a
> mergeable state, which will still leave us with 4-5 weeks of bugfixing time
> for this code. One part of it is, it will revisit some of the geometry
> checker code which is corrected for threading and other issues, so that can
> already be seen as "bugfixing of existing code" that will land as part of
> it.
>
> I would also like to pre-emptively apply for a freeze exemption for
> the work detailed in
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/114 and
> currently the target of the crowd funding campaign at
>
> https://north-road.com/edit-features-in-place-using-qgis-spatial-operations-campaign/
>
> The fund raising is proceeding nicely and I believe this work will be
> successfully funded, and I'd love to get it in for 3.4. I'd estimate
> 1-2 weeks post freeze for merge.
>
> Nyall
> ___
> 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



-- 
Saber Razmjooei
www.lutraconsulting.co.uk
+44 (0)7568 129733
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Nyall Dawson]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 15:13, Matthias Kuhn  wrote:
>
> Feature freeze is coming end of next week with a freeze window of 6 weeks. In 
> the past, we have regularly granted freeze exemptions to some features upon 
> request.
>
> I think it would be good to know, what we can expect this time to decide on 
> what is granted and then send them over to Loomio for review.
>
> Myself, I would like to include Geometry Validation 
> (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/131). I estimate 
> will require about 1 to maximum 2 more week to get it into a mergeable state, 
> which will still leave us with 4-5 weeks of bugfixing time for this code. One 
> part of it is, it will revisit some of the geometry checker code which is 
> corrected for threading and other issues, so that can already be seen as 
> "bugfixing of existing code" that will land as part of it.

I would also like to pre-emptively apply for a freeze exemption for
the work detailed in
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/114 and
currently the target of the crowd funding campaign at
https://north-road.com/edit-features-in-place-using-qgis-spatial-operations-campaign/

The fund raising is proceeding nicely and I believe this work will be
successfully funded, and I'd love to get it in for 3.4. I'd estimate
1-2 weeks post freeze for merge.

Nyall
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi Matthias,

Il 09/05/2018 07:13 AM, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>
> Feature freeze is coming end of next week with a freeze window of 6
> weeks. In the past, we have regularly granted freeze exemptions to
> some features upon request.
>
> I think it would be good to know, what we can expect this time to
> decide on what is granted and then send them over to Loomio for review.
>
> Myself, I would like to include Geometry Validation
> (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/131). I
> estimate will require about 1 to maximum 2 more week to get it into a
> mergeable state, which will still leave us with 4-5 weeks of bugfixing
> time for this code. One part of it is, it will revisit some of the
> geometry checker code which is corrected for threading and other
> issues, so that can already be seen as "bugfixing of existing code"
> that will land as part of it.
>
thanks for this request - this is indeed a gray area that has caused
some discomfort in the past, so it will be good to have more clear
guidelines. I think it will be difficult to carve them in stone however;
some ad hoc evaluation will be necessary.
Maybe we can ask three questions:
* should we set a hard limit for freeze (e.g. no exemption in the last X
weeks), or we can decide anytime based on the merit of the code submitted?
* whom should decide on this? I personally think core developers should
have a much heavier weight in this decision than PSC
* based on which (more or less objective) criteria? This could include
isolation of code,  i.e. likelihood that it will break other parts,
importance of the new feature for the majority of users, quality of the
code, commitment to promptly fix bugs.
All the best.

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis


___
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] Feature freeze / exemptions

[Matthias Kuhn]

Feature freeze is coming end of next week with a freeze window of 6
weeks. In the past, we have regularly granted freeze exemptions to some
features upon request.

I think it would be good to know, what we can expect this time to decide
on what is granted and then send them over to Loomio for review.

Myself, I would like to include Geometry Validation
(https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/131). I
estimate will require about 1 to maximum 2 more week to get it into a
mergeable state, which will still leave us with 4-5 weeks of bugfixing
time for this code. One part of it is, it will revisit some of the
geometry checker code which is corrected for threading and other issues,
so that can already be seen as "bugfixing of existing code" that will
land as part of it.

Thanks a lot and best regards

-- 
Matthias Kuhn
matth...@opengis.ch 
+41 (0)76 435 67 63 
OPENGIS.ch Logo 
___
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