On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 09:36, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:21, Martin Dobias <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think for the time being we should still treat the 3D library as > > having unstable API - so I wanted to check how others would feel about > > having Python API for qgis_3d that would be marked as unstable, i.e. > > there may be changes between 3.x releases? I think with big warnings > > in the docs that the API may change we can get others to experiment > > with 3D functionality while not offending anyone too much if we break > > it later. The idea is that the API would get frozen at some point > > later in 3.x release cycle or for QGIS 4. > > I don't see an issue with this -- there's other parts of code exposed > to PyQGIS which is also clearly marked as non-stable. Some processing > classes for instance.
Note this touches on discussion at https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/8054 too. Quoting: "Maybe we should do qt approach and have "technology preview" classes, before classes mature? We could even do this as a general rule - new classes are tech previews for 2 minor releases." Nyall _______________________________________________ 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
