Hi
> On 7 Aug 2019, at 00:37, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:08, Tim Sutton wrote:
>>
>> /me is googling for cloud hosting services in North Korea :-P
>>
>> Sandro's comments about migrating issues to gitea make me think he has more
>> in mind than a simple mirror of the
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:08, Tim Sutton wrote:
>
> /me is googling for cloud hosting services in North Korea :-P
>
> Sandro's comments about migrating issues to gitea make me think he has more
> in mind than a simple mirror of the code….
>
> If we want a mirror surely it is easier to simply have
/me is googling for cloud hosting services in North Korea :-P
Sandro's comments about migrating issues to gitea make me think he has more in
mind than a simple mirror of the code….
If we want a mirror surely it is easier to simply have a small hetzner server
running a public read only git
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 00:40, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 02:26:04PM +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>
> > I think at the least we could/should endorse an official, read-only
> > repo mirror which isn't affected by the trade laws, e.g.
> > https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/qgis/QGIS
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Tim Sutton wrote:
>
> GitHub impact is more conceptual than actual as has been shown in this
> thread. So sure, lets have a plan B in place, that was always the long game
> plan for our code etc. But lets do take our time and do it right and in a
> considered way.
I would just like to draw your attention to issue 30162
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/issues/31062.
I would appreciate any comments on what people with more experience than I
do think about my two different ideas to fix this bug. It has clearly been
an issue in the past as there are issues
Hi
> On 2 Aug 2019, at 05:45, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>
> Hi all.
> I'm often unhappy when I'm right.
In which particular aspect are you right?
> Although the practical impact this time is low, I would take this as a clear
> signal (after the loomio move, and I expect more) that we have to
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 02:26:04PM +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> I think at the least we could/should endorse an official, read-only
> repo mirror which isn't affected by the trade laws, e.g.
> https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/qgis/QGIS would be a great candidate
Latest Gitea release (1.9.0)
Hey Guys,
Does anyone know of any good tutorials on how to get started with C++ for
QGIS applications?
Thanks in advance
Le gach dea ghui,
*Shane Carey*
___
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info:
Hi Nyall,
> Ok, we've hit a stalemate then. I was hoping to drop the additional
> algorithms to allow some desirable new features like avoiding
> duplicate text labels within xxx mm of others (e.g. avoiding too many
> labels for dual-carriage highways), and use that some logic to start
>
Hi
I don't think there has been a strong enough argument to keep the extra
bloat.and the potential goodies you hint at coming if they are removed have
a broader benefit to all users over some hidden features that nobody
understands.
Tim Sutton
Co-founder of Kartoza
Ex-QGIS project
Hi Nyall
"Ok, we've hit a stalemate then. I was hoping to drop the additional
algorithms..." please remove. Try and error without a good statistic or
collection of maps where these options can do the difference IMHO is not
strong enough respect cleaning code and void bug fixing.
Luigi Pirelli
+1 for the removal too. Never could explain the difference. Playing with
number of candidates is a lot more useful than changing the algorithm.
Best regards
Régis
Le mar. 6 août 2019 à 08:14, Anita Graser a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:40 AM Nyall Dawson
> wrote:
>
>> Does ANYONE
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:40 AM Nyall Dawson wrote:
> Does ANYONE understand or change this setting? Or would object to its
> complete removal?
>
I'd be +1 for removal. I know about the setting, don't understand the
algorithmic differences, have tried them in the past, didn't see meaningful
14 matches
Mail list logo
