Sorry about that blank email. Hit ctrl enter really early. On Tue Dec 23 2014 at 9:31:30 AM Nathan Woodrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue Dec 23 2014 at 8:57:26 AM G. Allegri <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with Nyall. I think putting hidden "proof of concepts" within an >> official release doesn't put QGIS in a good light. It could be ok some time >> ago, when QGIS was a niche, but not today. If a sponsorship campagin is >> required to complete the development we should pursue different marketing >> strategies (e.g. blogs, videos showing the upcoming features). >> >> giovanni >> >> 2014-12-22 23:47 GMT+01:00 Nyall Dawson <[email protected]>: >> >>> Sorry, gmail messed up my original reply: >>> >>> On 23 Dec 2014 5:11 am, "Paolo Cavallini" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > IMHO removing the function will make much more difficult to attract >>> > interest and funding to complete the necessary features. My proposal: >>> > add an option to add the rotation spinbox, deactivated by default, and >>> > clearly marked as experimental/incomplete. In this way, only >>> > interested and conscious people will activate it, if they are ready to >>> > bear the missing parts. >>> >>> I disagree - while there may be an issue with the difficulty of getting >>> wide testing of pull requests, the solution isn't to allow broken code into >>> master. >>> >>> We've recently made great progress in showing that we are a serious >>> enterprise ready alternative, with the introduction of CI testing and the >>> proposals for LTS releases. We now need to show that we are serious about >>> the quality of our code and product by not allowing broken or beta features >>> into releases. Adding a checkbox to unlock such features isn't a good >>> solution - it just looks amateurish and hacky! >>> >>> As it stands right now, what is the use of this feature? It can't be >>> used for presentation (no composer support) nor for analysis or querying >>> use (broken selection and info tools). Without addressing these issues this >>> feature has no current use case (I may be missing something here, feel free >>> to fill me in if I am). Sandro has made it clear that he currently has no >>> plans for tackling these issues before our next release - meaning either: >>> 1. Our first LTS release will be left with a broken, buggy feature, >>> which is not a good impression at all for users and sponsors. >>> Or, >>> 2. Someone else will have to volunteer their time to fix this code >>> before release. >>> >>> This is a big decision, as it has the potential to set the precedence >>> for how QGIS is developed. Do we allow work-in-progress and incomplete >>> features in master, or should they be left in branches and pull requests >>> until they are complete and largely bug free? >>> >>> Personally, I'm strongly in favour of the second option. >>> >>> Nyall >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Qgis-developer mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Giovanni Allegri >> http://about.me/giovanniallegri >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/_giohappy_ >> blog: http://blog.spaziogis.it >> GEO+ geomatica in Italia http://bit.ly/GEOplus >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
