Nikos, I didn't notice your suggestion. Good to know that it's not an isolated idea :)
My two cents. In general I feel confortable with a nested model. We could provide a first top-level grouping based on the qgis layer type the plugin operates on, i.e. raster and vector. We can further subdivide them into second-level generic groups like "import/export", "analysis", etc. I would avoid groups like "terrain analysis" or "hydrology" at this level, even if this is a common approach, and would let them reside in lower levels... but I'm not sure whetrer it makes sense or it's just a subjective feeling. giovanni 2009/11/3 Νίκος Αλεξανδρής <nikos.alexand...@felis.uni-freiburg.de>: > On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 22:55 +0100, G. Allegri wrote: >> Hi all. >> In these days I was watching my qgis plugins toolbar growin' and >> growin'... That's good, it means a lot of good code is being written, >> but I was wondering if it's the time to consider organizing the >> plugins under common task/feature/etc groups. It is a common structure >> in many GIS desktops: GRASS groups them under different "namespaces" >> (r.*, v.*, d.*, i.*, etc.), SAGA use data-types or kind of analysis >> (i.e. "grid", "vector", "table", "terrain analysis" modules, etc.), >> and so on for many others (MapWindows, or commercial solutions like >> ArcGIS Desktop). >> Wouldn't it be useful for QGis too? Has this been discussed? > > See http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2009-October/006477.html > > Regards, Nikos > > _______________________________________________ Qgis-user mailing list Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user