Sun 24 Jan 2016 8:59PM

Vote to approve the process for QGIS 3.0

TS Tim Sutton Public Seen by 285

Recently I posted a blog post (http://blog.qgis.org/2016/01/17/help-us-to-plan-for-qgis-3-0/) summarising the considerations on how we should go about the process of putting out a QGIS 3.0 release. At the bottom of that posting is a proposal outlined by Matthias Kuhn. I created this thread so that we can agree or reject Matthias' proposal. In the situation where it is rejected, a viable alternative should be offered. Once we have an agreed upon roadmap, we should communicate this clearly to the greater QGIS user community.

For easy reference, here is Matthias' proposal:

QGIS 2.16 Release as usual in 4 months

-> PyQt5 Support
-> Python 3 Support
-> Wrapper library for PyQt4/PyQt5
-> Maybe a helper transition script that does 80% of the rewrite
-> All old plugins still work
-> Some python code is updated (console, plugin manager, processing) to
have some guidelines and experience how to update python code
-> For future debian, mac osx… versions there’s a qt5 version around
(with almost no plugins working)

During the same time: make some noise that QGIS 3 is coming and we need
everybody to put some money and dev time aside for it and that it’s
going to be amazing.

After that: 8 months break for 3.0 (maybe some betas after 4 months and
every month after)


Anita Graser Mon 25 Jan 2016 7:48AM

Thanks for keeping this rolling, Tim!


Paolo Cavallini Mon 25 Jan 2016 8:33AM

Agreed, thanks Tim!


Andreas Neumann Mon 25 Jan 2016 2:26PM

Looks good to me, Tim!


Poll Created Thu 28 Jan 2016 8:48AM

I approve the QGIS 3.0 development process as outline my Matthias Kuhn Closed Thu 4 Feb 2016 8:07AM


Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 50.0% 4 TS AN OD MH
Abstain 12.5% 1 GS
Disagree 37.5% 3 AG PC RD
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 2 JEF JEF

8 of 10 people have participated (80%)


Tim Sutton
Thu 28 Jan 2016 8:49AM

It all looks good for me.


Richard Duivenvoorde
Thu 28 Jan 2016 3:57PM

I think we communicated enough we were going to make 2.14 the last and best (and LTR) 2.x version, and should now fully focus on a good 3.0


Paolo Cavallini
Thu 28 Jan 2016 6:48PM

More comments tomorrow.


Anita Graser
Fri 29 Jan 2016 12:04PM

agree with Richard's arguments


Jürgen E. Fischer Thu 28 Jan 2016 1:49PM

The proposal doesn't say who would be doing the work. We already agreed to work on this for 2.12, but not much was done.


Andreas Neumann Thu 28 Jan 2016 2:37PM

@jef - I think "who works on it" can be a separate decision. Once we decided on process and timing we will certainly ask our core devs if they can contribute and how much.

Load More