Hi, 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 feature.
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. my2cts, Harrissou 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 > Qgisemail@example.com > List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgisfirstname.lastname@example.org List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer