Hi Nathan, I was thinking the same way lately. QGIS has now plenty of feature, and while this is really great, our technical debt seems to be increasing a lot recently. Having a formal process for major new features as MapServer and GDAL have, would allow to have a much more coherent way of developping qgis. Strong +1 on the idea then. Vincent
Le jeudi 21 août 2014 14:26:39, Nathan Woodrow a écrit : > Hey all, > > I would like to raise something I have been considering for a while now. We > are becoming a large project, in code and users, and there has been some > recent issues of developers doing work only for there to be disagreements > on the implementation. I would like resurrect the use of RFCs, or I think > would should name them QEP (QGIS Enhancement Proposal because that sounds > much cooler :) > > My thinking behind this was: > > - QGIS is picking up pace in popularity and use so we need something to > formalise the future feature set and any improvements for the next version. > Most people know the Python project uses the idea of PEPs in order to > document what new major features are coming in X version and to explain the > rational, or reasons . I have found this handy to be able to look at > detailed overview of why a feature made it or didn't, or when it might make > it, or if ever. > > - This is more then just using the bug tracker to log future features. This > is something where we can have more detail and then break it down into sub > tasks which can live in the bug tracker but linked to the QEP (RFC). > > - The QEP should also have formal voting and discussion around the > proposal. This should be limited to a small pool of developers. > > - The QEP could also list changes the API, or if breaking changes need to > be made. > > - Things like how the new feature might fit into other future plans. > > - QEPs should list as much detail as possible in order to help everyone see > the bigger picture with the feature or change. > > Another reason I was thinking about this was in order to consolidate major > features and collaborate better. Emails are fine but get lost and forgotten > very easily, the bug tracker is the same. The QEP can link to the emails > and tickets for future reference. QEPs should be the central point for the > feature linking to everything that is related. > > Tim has been using GitHub for inaSAFE RFCs and it looks good. IMO I would > say we should use that. > > Thoughts? > > Nathan _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
