Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

W dniu 18.01.2018 o 18:29, Tom Chadwin pisze: Jorge Gustavo Rocha wrote It would be amazing if we could share things among OSGeo projects. We could dream with common resources, like glossaries, for example. What a brilliant idea. Do we work with gvSIG to share translation resource? There must

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

Hello, A bit late to the party, and I think for such an important matter it is good to wait a bit to hear more voices. I have mixed feelings about switching to a new issue manager without the history for QGIS3, and will not argue here for a specific roadmap. But I think the GitHub vs GitLab deb

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

Le mer. 17 janv. 2018 à 18:06, Tim Sutton a écrit : > Hi > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Denis Rouzaud > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'd like to move on a bit the discussion. >> >> I'll try to summarize (and to be fair and honest): >> >> * The desire to switch to Github is strong >> 1 again

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

Jorge Gustavo Rocha wrote > It would be amazing if we could share things among OSGeo projects. We > could dream with common resources, like glossaries, for example. What a brilliant idea. Do we work with gvSIG to share translation resource? There must be considerable overlap. Tom - Buy Pie

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Thanks Paul!

Much appreciated, thanks to all involved. I agree that including doc writing into commercial offers is the best way to go in the future. All the best. Il 18/01/2018 15:01, Tim Sutton ha scritto: > Great stuff, thanks Paul! > > Regards > > Tim > >> On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:09, Régis Haubourg >

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

Hi Sandro, I would prefer to use translate.osgeo.org. The first advantage would be the authentication support and the unified OSGeo user profile. Translators working on QGIS and other OSGeo projects would love to stay on the same platform. Our translation requirements are similar to other OSGeo p

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Thanks Paul!

Great stuff, thanks Paul! Regards Tim > On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:09, Régis Haubourg wrote: > > Hi, > +1. That kind of documentation effort is much much appreciated! Kudos Paul! > > Régis > > 2018-01-18 9:57 GMT+01:00 Yves Jacolin >: > Hello, > > I would like to publi

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Thanks Paul!

Hi, +1. That kind of documentation effort is much much appreciated! Kudos Paul! Régis 2018-01-18 9:57 GMT+01:00 Yves Jacolin : > Hello, > > I would like to publicly thanks Paul for his work on the documentation of > auxiliary storage [1]. This is the second time that Paul wrote a PR for > docume

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Processing plugin - Set style on resulting layer

My bad ... Actually I was not using the output.getVectorWriter object the correct way. After fixing it the layer extracting from postgis by uri resulted in the default layer style from postgis to be add automatically using the getVectorWriter of the processing.core.outputs.OutputVector object. If

[QGIS-Developer] Thanks Paul!

Hello, I would like to publicly thanks Paul for his work on the documentation ofauxiliary storage [1]. This is the second time that Paul wrote a PR for documentation linked to a feature he added in QGIS. This really helps much the documentation quality. I will be really happy if this could occur

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:00:45AM +, Jorge Gustavo Rocha wrote: > After this discussion about the development workflow, I would prefer to > start another "disruptive" change and move from Transifex to Weblate. As OSGeo system administrators we were considering adding a Weblate instance on tr

[QGIS-Developer] Plugin [1390] Geometry Validator approval notification.

Plugin Geometry Validator approval by pcav. The plugin version "[1390] Geometry Validator 1.0.0" is now approved Link: http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/GeometryValidator/ ___ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://li

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

Hi all, Tim's proposal seems a interesting compromise. We keeping the redmine active to support 2.x version and we start a new development workflow for 3.x. based on git[hub|lab]. As Paolo, Nyall and other pointed out, we will have some noise regarding duplication of issues, out of sync issues (c

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 07:52:37AM +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote: > since the redmine upgrade I've no strong issues with it. (Reactivation > of the mantra would totally change this opinion though!!) Note that the mantra is currentcly active. Incidentally, many recent people asking for a mantra are co

[QGIS-Developer] Plugin [1390] Geometry Validator unapproval notification.

Plugin Geometry Validator unapproval by pcav. The plugin version "[1390] Geometry Validator 1.0.0" is now unapproved Link: http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/GeometryValidator/ ___ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https:

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Last call for switching to github issue tracker

Hi all, Il 18/01/2018 00:07, Nyall Dawson ha scritto: > On 18 January 2018 at 08:06, Tim Sutton wrote: > >> So I would suggest raising a vote on the motion: >> >> “We should adopt GitHub issues for reporting issues in 3.0 and restrict >> Redmine for the management of issues in QGIS 2.x”. >> >>

[QGIS-Developer] Plugin [1390] Geometry Validator approval notification.

Plugin Geometry Validator approval by zimbogisgeek. The plugin version "[1390] Geometry Validator 1.0.0" is now approved Link: http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/GeometryValidator/ ___ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: ht