On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
> - [ ] I did not open a pull request because while the feature was
> actually working for me, the quality was not deemed high enough to be
> acceptable, so it's still rotting somewhere in my repository in a
> meanwhile unmergeable state.
Oh gosh
Hi,
> Until we have evidence that this argument is valid, I think it's
> actually causing much more harm to the community than good. (It can
> easily be mis-interpreted as "you wasted your time volunteering this
> contribution, you should have fixed #xyz instead.")
nobody should ever ever judge
Hi,
Thanks for bringing this up Nyall.
From my side, this survey would have had ticks in every of the
available options over time.
And I'd have mentioned in the "feedback" part of the survey that some
relevant information to answer the core question was missing because the
question only
Hi all,
I understand the frustration from both sides. Roughly, our users mostly demand
more stability, whereas customers mostly pay for new features. We have balanced
this using QGIS.ORG budget, by having more tests, but obviously we can't cover
all. I'm pretty sure over time things will keep
Hi list,
This is something which has been on my mind a lot lately. Whenever a
question comes up about regressions or stability, the argument is
often thrown around that developers are writing "fun new features, not
fixes".
I personally think this argument is a red herring. At best, it's a
