As a user and not developer (again...), I could also live with my projects being slightly broken (+1 for the short migration guide) if this is the price to pay for a perfect consistency of the transparency / opacity sliders.
In this case I would also favor "transparency" over "opacity" And I surrender to Andreas's argument. Yes to "stroke" (instead of "border" or "outline") if this means we are following well accepted standards Cheers Stéphane Le mardi 7 février 2017, Paolo Cavallini <[email protected]> a écrit : > Il 07/02/2017 10:59, Nyall Dawson ha scritto: > > > Well, ideally not. Currently we only break projects which rely on very > > old features (such as 1.x labeling, conversion from old symbology, > > some composer features from maybe 2.6 or earlier). None of these > > breaks are ever likely to be encountered by users. > > > > But breaking data defined transparency may. > > IMHO the break is not desirable, but acceptable, if the advantage is > more consistency. > I think we can prepare a short Migration guide pointing out all the > points to be taken care of/check/modify for the end user. > Cheers. > -- > Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu > QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html > https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer -- “When you travel, remember that a foreign country is not designed to make you comfortable. It is designed to make its own people comfortable." -- Clifton Fadiman
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
