Apologies if I misread some comments above but I'm afraid we are moving
from what Alexandre was mentionning in his first post (in any case, the way
I understood it): add consistency to the features QGIS already provide (and
among those features). While I'm also interested in some requests (such as
"bad layers handling" - I like the way InDesign manage broken links), I
wonder if this kind of request should not be kept for the hub as it's a new
Richard mentioned a place where 3.0 requests were listed. Is it this one
https://github.com/qgis/qgis3.0_api/ ? While it's supposed to be api
oriented, maybe we can extend it and allow to list/discuss and filter (in a
more organized way) all UI/UX thingies that worth a fix before 3.0 lands.
In this way, anyone that wants to help can pick an issue and ask pointers
from devs if/when needed.
2016-11-30 18:56 GMT+01:00 Spencer Gardner <spencergard...@gmail.com>:
> (Sorry if this double posts. Forgot subject line last time)
> >Actually, I don't dislike the dialog of handlings bad layers. Maybe keeping
> >the layers could be a setting in that dialog. Another cool thing is if once
> >you correct one layer data source, it would be smart enough to fix layers
> >in a similar data source.
> I think I'd be OK with that. My biggest problem is wanting to keep the layer
> in my map document even if the reference is bad so that I don't lose styling
> or other information.
> Also +1 for intelligent fixing of layers with similar data source.
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Qgis-developer mailing list
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer