Wow Even - just amazing as always.
Have you confirmed that you can no open a FileGDB in QGIS? I still get the
freeze when using GDAL trunk, but maybe that now a QGIS problem.
-Original Message-
From: Even Rouault [mailto:even.roua...@mines-paris.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013 11:29 a
Le lundi 12 août 2013 22:12:11, Jeremy Palmer a écrit :
> Further to this I see that when you open a FIleGDB in QGIS 3 OGROpen calls
> made to the same database before any OGR_DS_Destroy calls are made. These
> open calls occur during the layer selection dialog, the OGR provider
> construction, and
Further to this I see that when you open a FIleGDB in QGIS 3 OGROpen calls made
to the same database before any OGR_DS_Destroy calls are made. These open calls
occur during the layer selection dialog, the OGR provider construction, and the
initialisation of the QgsOgrFeatureIterator.
I'm guessi
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Marco Hugentobler <
marco.hugentob...@sourcepole.ch> wrote:
> >are you saying that advertising the known issues is bad publicity or
> that releasing with open blockers is bad publicity
>
> I wanted to say that advertising the known issues is bad publicity.
>
>are you saying that advertising the known issues is bad publicity or
that releasing with open blockers is bad publicity
I wanted to say that advertising the known issues is bad publicity.
Pointing to the bug tracker however is fine for me (it sounded to me as
if the blockers would be listed n
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Marco Hugentobler <
marco.hugentob...@sourcepole.ch> wrote:
> Hi Tim
>
> The proposed schedule sounds good to me.
>
>
> >The proposal on the table is that any remaining blockers be clearly
> listed as known issues in the release announcements.
>
> Hm, don't
> Hi all.
> This point should be stressed, and the word spread through social
> networks: with only 14 blockers, if a bunch of power users take care
> of one each, with a reasonable effort we can have a blockers-free
> release, a major target IMHO.
blockers are already dropped to 12, then one has
On 12 August 2013 09:33, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Il 12/08/2013 10:10, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>
> > Yes I should have asked this too - personally I prefer we do it in
> > a future version. Maybe its something we should keep for V3?
>
> IMHO rena
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 12/08/2013 11:47, Giovanni Manghi ha scritto:
> is someone having a look to the (many) pull requests? I see that
> there are patched potentially fixing important/annoying bugs.
Agreed: in addition to missing potentially good code, we discourage
ap
>> Hm, don't you think this is bad publicity for the project? After all, we
don't list the other bugs as 'known issues', even though they are known as
well.
I guess technically it isn't really needed as we have a public bug tracker
unlike most closed software which have to release a known issue li
> Hi all.
> This point should be stressed, and the word spread through social
> networks: with only 14 blockers, if a bunch of power users take care
> of one each, with a reasonable effort we can have a blockers-free
> release, a major target IMHO.
Hi all,
is someone having a look to the (many)
I do not think there is too much risk of breaking things, it shouldn't
be that complex.
Also, it's a plugin (core or not), so we can later publish a newer
version if something is broken, and let people update it. It's not
going to break any other code, since nothing (except plugins based on
SEXTAN
Hi Tim
The proposed schedule sounds good to me.
>The proposal on the table is that any remaining blockers be clearly
listed as known issues in the release announcements.
Hm, don't you think this is bad publicity for the project? After all, we
don't list the other bugs as 'known issues', even
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Il 12/08/2013 10:10, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>
> > Yes I should have asked this too - personally I prefer we do it in
> > a future version. Maybe its something we should keep for V3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 12/08/2013 10:10, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> Yes I should have asked this too - personally I prefer we do it in
> a future version. Maybe its something we should keep for V3?
IMHO renaming sextante after people got used to it will introduce more
and
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Alexander Bruy wrote:
> 2013/8/12 Tim Sutton :
> > Speaking of release announcements, I have set up a very alpha-y web site
> for
> > creating a visual changelog and I am looking for volunteers to add
> entries
> > to this. If you have some time to write about
If you are loading them by default it doesn't make sense to keep them as a
plugins better to just make them core. It doesn't really matter at the
moment for 2.0 anyway but I'll chat about it more at the HF
On 12/08/2013 6:02 PM, "Tim Sutton" wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Nat
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Anita Graser wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Victor Olaya wrote:
>
>> I wasn't very fond of this idea because or course I like the SEXTANTE
>> branding itself, but in terms of integration I now think it is better.
>
> For a user that wants to do
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Marco Hugentobler <
> marco.hugentob...@sourcepole.ch> wrote:
>
>> Plugins are a sophisticated way of keeping things lean and separated.
>
>
> I have no issue with none core plugins, in fact that is som
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Victor Olaya wrote:
> I wasn't very fond of this idea because or course I like the SEXTANTE
> branding itself, but in terms of integration I now think it is better.
For a user that wants to do some analysis, keeping the SEXTANTE name
> means that the user has t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 12/08/2013 01:21, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> If those 'out there' in the community have the ability to fund the
> closing of the remaining blocker issues [1] either by donating
> money to QGIS or by sponsoring developer time independently of the
> Q
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Marco Hugentobler <
marco.hugentob...@sourcepole.ch> wrote:
> Plugins are a sophisticated way of keeping things lean and separated.
I have no issue with none core plugins, in fact that is something I always
promote as a powerful feature. Core however plugins are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 12/08/2013 09:13, Marco Hugentobler ha scritto:
> I think the plugin concept is highly usefull for both core/noncore,
> C++
Hi all.
I agree the plugin architecture is useful. IMHO the issue is mainly a
matter of hiding too much detail for the avera
Hi Nathan
>Personally I find the core plugin concept unnecessary. If it's core it
shouldn't be a plugin and should just be part of the main program. It
can still be Python that is fine however >users shouldn't have to turn
them on and off they should just be there and be transparent.
I thin
24 matches
Mail list logo
