Hi devs,
I just discovered a serious bug in LTR on a Ubuntu 16.04 machine (on
16.04 QGIS 3.4 is the most updated version an user can have). Same issue
as listed here [0].
Besides on this specific issue, I think recent 3.4 LTR suffered from
some big regressions ([1], [2]...): some of them have bee
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 23:16, matteo wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> I just discovered a serious bug in LTR on a Ubuntu 16.04 machine (on
> 16.04 QGIS 3.4 is the most updated version an user can have). Same issue
> as listed here [0].
Is your link to [0] incorrect? It's the same as [1], which was
resolve
Hi
> I'm not writing this email because I have a proposal,
In addition to Nyall’s reply, can I ask what the actual proposal you have is?
Hint: proposals like ‘I would like to donate 10 million USD to support LTRs and
fix every known bug’ would be warmly accepted. But seriously if you have a go
Hi Tim,
>> I'm not writing this email because I have a proposal,
>
> In addition to Nyall’s reply, can I ask what the actual proposal you
> have is? Hint: proposals like ‘I would like to donate 10 million USD to
> support LTRs and fix every known bug’ would be warmly accepted. But
> seriously if
Hi Nyall,
> I'm not saying that we DON'T have some bad regressions which slip in
> occasionally to the LTR (the recent db manager regression discussion
> comes to mind), but I honestly don't think there's a bigger problem
> here. Everything listed here (GRASS provider, PostGIS rasters, db
> manage
Hi
> On 1 Aug 2019, at 15:04, matteo wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
>>> I'm not writing this email because I have a proposal,
>>
>> In addition to Nyall’s reply, can I ask what the actual proposal you
>> have is? Hint: proposals like ‘I would like to donate 10 million USD to
>> support LTRs and fix ev
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 00:17, matteo wrote:
>
> Hi Nyall,
>
> > I'm not saying that we DON'T have some bad regressions which slip in
> > occasionally to the LTR (the recent db manager regression discussion
> > comes to mind), but I honestly don't think there's a bigger problem
> > here. Everything
Hi,
> Right -- but again, I see no concrete issues here. We have one issue
> which isn't a regression (postgis rasters) and is instead a feature
> request, and one regression which was caused by an important fix
> (broken grass for Windows non-English users), not a feature! (And one
> unknown issu
Hi Matteo
On 8/2/19 7:15 AM, matteo wrote:
Hi,
Right -- but again, I see no concrete issues here. We have one issue
which isn't a regression (postgis rasters) and is instead a feature
request, and one regression which was caused by an important fix
(broken grass for Windows non-English users),
Hi
Wow yay! Thanks so much for the PG raster support Alessandro! Cant wait to
try it out!
Regards
Tim
> Also - just to point out - Alessandro implemented the feature request
> overnight. Big kudos to him -- we finally have a stable way of using
> PostGIS rasters in QGIS.*
>
>
_
Hello list,
Some more thoughts on this topic, because it comes up repeatedly.
One the first principles of every of our developers is to try to avoid
regressions. Whenever a QGIS developer writes code or reviews code,
there is this process in the back of the head going on thinking "could
this
Matthias, you're raising a good point on the 2.0 vs 3.4 (I'd argue 2.18 vs
3.4 too). Sometimes we tend to get so "passionate" about specific bugs that
impact our own workflows that we end up not seeing the forest for the
trees. 3.4 LTS is overall a much, much more solid product than 2.18 was and
ou
Hi Matthias,
> One the first principles of every of our developers is to try to avoid
> regressions. Whenever a QGIS developer writes code or reviews code,
> there is this process in the back of the head going on thinking "could
> this cause side effects?". Most of the times we are quite efficient
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 18:13, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>d) Stop shipping bugfixes (hint: joke, that makes the LTR concept
> pointless and anyone can do that today already by sticking to the .0
> patch release ;) )
Actually - jokes aside - this does raise a good question.
We've never (as far as i
On 8/5/19 1:00 AM, Nyall Dawson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 18:13, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
d) Stop shipping bugfixes (hint: joke, that makes the LTR concept
pointless and anyone can do that today already by sticking to the .0
patch release ;) )
Actually - jokes aside - this does raise a goo
Hiii all,
On 05/08/19 11:10, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
> On 8/5/19 1:00 AM, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 18:13, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>>
>>> d) Stop shipping bugfixes (hint: joke, that makes the LTR concept
>>> pointless and anyone can do that today already by sticking to the .0
>>>
Hi all
On 05.08.19 18:05, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Hiii all,
>
> On 05/08/19 11:10, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>> On 8/5/19 1:00 AM, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 18:13, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>>>
d) Stop shipping bugfixes (hint: joke, that makes the LTR concept
pointless an
H
i all,
On 07/08/19 12:05, Marco Bernasocchi wrote:
> - there is a sort of "regression obsession", IMO bugs are bugs, and they
> should ideally be fixed whenever possible (also see Jürgen's answer on
> another tread [1])
I agree 50% here. Of course obsessions are bad. However, breaking an
exist
Hi,
was this thread the more recent discussion/decision about what to backport
in LTS?
If I understand correctly, the judgment is left to the individual core
developer who by chance happens to approve the backport PR.
I'm asking because I feel that we developers do not always agree about what
to
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 15:58, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> was this thread the more recent discussion/decision about what to backport in
> LTS?
>
> If I understand correctly, the judgment is left to the individual core
> developer who by chance happens to approve the backport PR.
Corr
> And at this stage in the life of the LTR I just
> don't see the risks of regressions outweighing anything but
> crash/corruption fixes.
"Stage" is the keyword here. Number of software vendors have generally several
stages during the lifetime of the product they support, generally a first one
w
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:22 PM Even Rouault
wrote:
> > And at this stage in the life of the LTR I just
> > don't see the risks of regressions outweighing anything but
> > crash/corruption fixes.
>
> "Stage" is the keyword here. Number of software vendors have generally
> several
> stages during
22 matches
Mail list logo
