Thanks for raising this Nyall On 10/07/16 00:18, Nyall Dawson wrote: > I'd like to raise an idea for discussion: should we *require* that all > 3.0 API breaks are introduced via a PR? I am in favor of this.
> Advantages I'd see are: > 1. wider discussion about the nicest way the new/modified API could work > 2. allows for discussion about whether the documentation for the API > break is sufficient for plugin developers > > Disadvantages: > 1. More work > 2. Given that there's going to be a lot of breaks, it could slow > development down. I am in favor of this. Sometimes it's nice to change some things and get other opinions. Leaving it open for a few days should be enough to give it visibility. Speaking of which... How are we documenting API changes? Doxygen, website or documentation? Matthias > > I'm a +0 on this. > > Nyall > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
