Hi all.
I'm keeping on publishing plugins. The work is going rather smoothly,
apart for a few authors not respondign at all.
BTW, it would be very useful to add to the Django appa field for editor
notes[0]. Is anyone willing to add this?
Thanks.
[0] http://hub.qgis.org/issues/10125
--
Paolo Caval
Il 11/05/2012 14:56, kimaidou ha scritto:
> For these reasons I think we should not force developpers to add test data :
> * it increases the sise of the zip
> * some plugins won't need specific data to be tested
> * We can instead ask which data in the Alaska sample data can be used to test
> th
Alexander,
My point of view :
2012/5/11 Alexander Bruy
> There is a typo at page "ahs at least minimal documentation"
> seems here should be "has at least minimal documentation".
>
> Also I think we need a more clean guidelines about some
> requirements:
> - should plugin author include docume
Il 11/05/2012 14:30, Alexander Bruy ha scritto:
> There is a typo at page "ahs at least minimal documentation"
> seems here should be "has at least minimal documentation".
fixed, thanks
> Also I think we need a more clean guidelines about some
> requirements:
> - should plugin author include doc
There is a typo at page "ahs at least minimal documentation"
seems here should be "has at least minimal documentation".
Also I think we need a more clean guidelines about some
requirements:
- should plugin author include documentation in plugin package
or it is enough to provide link to homepa
Il 11/05/2012 09:07, Anita Graser ha scritto:
> Test data should be provided so admins have a chance of testing the
> functionality
> without first having to look for suitable data.
Thanks for all comments. Added to http://plugins.qgis.org
Any objection for Nathan to take the lead on this?
All th
Test data should be provided so admins have a chance of testing the
functionality without first having to look for suitable data.
Regards,
Anita
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Il 10/05/2012 23:32, Martin Dobias ha scritto:
>
> > Well, a plugin that lacks some basic doc
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Il 10/05/2012 23:32, Martin Dobias ha scritto:
>
>> Well, a plugin that lacks some basic docs/instructions should be
>> rejected... if an admin struggles to understand its purpose, then the
>> users will have probably even greater troubles
2012/5/11 Paolo Cavallini :
> Il 10/05/2012 23:32, Martin Dobias ha scritto:
>
>> Well, a plugin that lacks some basic docs/instructions should be
>> rejected... if an admin struggles to understand its purpose, then the
>> users will have probably even greater troubles :-)
>
> So the rules should b
Il 10/05/2012 23:32, Martin Dobias ha scritto:
> Well, a plugin that lacks some basic docs/instructions should be
> rejected... if an admin struggles to understand its purpose, then the
> users will have probably even greater troubles :-)
So the rules should be simply:
- no malicious code
- docum
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> Hey Paolo,
>
> I'm happy to take that job on if no one else wants it. Currently I can
> approve plugins but haven't recently due to the lack of information for each
> plugin that has come up.
Well, a plugin that lacks some basic docs/instr
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Gary Sherman wrote:
>>
>> why don't we add it to the validator so that it's automatically
>> executed for all uploaded plugins?
>>
>>
> We could, but in some cases making these system calls is a valid thing to do.
> The only way to tell is to manually review the c
On May 10, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
> 2012/5/10 Gary Sherman :
>>
>> On May 10, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>>
>>> Il 10/05/2012 18:03, Gary Sherman ha scritto:
>>>
I have been approving them as I have time. I also have a Python script
that checks eac
2012/5/10 Gary Sherman :
>
> On May 10, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>
>> Il 10/05/2012 18:03, Gary Sherman ha scritto:
>>
>>> I have been approving them as I have time. I also have a Python script that
>>> checks each file for questionable coding practices that I will share with
>>>
On May 10, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Il 10/05/2012 18:03, Gary Sherman ha scritto:
>
>> I have been approving them as I have time. I also have a Python script that
>> checks each file for questionable coding practices that I will share with
>> those approving plugins.
>
> may
Maybe for Larry's ediror too
Marco Bernasocchi (mobile)
http://opengis.ch
On May 10, 2012 6:17 PM, "Paolo Cavallini" wrote:
> Il 10/05/2012 18:03, Gary Sherman ha scritto:
>
> > I have been approving them as I have time. I also have a Python script
> that checks each file for questionable coding
Il 10/05/2012 18:03, Gary Sherman ha scritto:
> I have been approving them as I have time. I also have a Python script that
> checks each file for questionable coding practices that I will share with
> those approving plugins.
maybe this could be useful for plugin writers too?
all the best.
--
Marco Bernasocchi (mobile)
http://opengis.ch
On May 10, 2012 6:03 PM, "Gary Sherman" wrote:
>
>
> On May 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>
> > Hi all.
> > The approval procedure for plugins is somewhat uncertain at the moment.
This is
> > causing delays for users and discontent for de
On May 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Hi all.
> The approval procedure for plugins is somewhat uncertain at the moment. This
> is
> causing delays for users and discontent for developers. I suggest to decide
> one, e.g.:
> - appointing a plugin manager, who is responsible for ei
Il 10/05/2012 14:12, Etienne Tourigny ha scritto:
> The functionality of ROQspatialite should be merged into qspatialite,
> if the author of qspatialite agrees.
> Quick inspection shows the differences are not very big, the author of
> ROQspatialite could probably manage to include them into qspat
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> Well I'm already on that list of people that get told everytime a new plugin
> is created. I'll just whack a filter in gmail on it so that they don't get
> lost in all the other qgis related mail.
>
> I have seen a few plugins of late that
Well I'm already on that list of people that get told everytime a new
plugin is created. I'll just whack a filter in gmail on it so that they
don't get lost in all the other qgis related mail.
I have seen a few plugins of late that just copy the function of an already
exsisting plugin only adding
Il 10/05/2012 13:54, Nathan Woodrow ha scritto:
> Hey Paolo,
>
> I'm happy to take that job on if no one else wants it. Currently I can
> approve
> plugins but haven't recently due to the lack of information for each plugin
> that has
> come up.
thanks for this. I think adding you to the list
Hey Paolo,
I'm happy to take that job on if no one else wants it. Currently I can
approve plugins but haven't recently due to the lack of information for
each plugin that has come up.
- Nathan
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Hi all.
> The approval procedure for plugin
Hi all.
10 plugins are currentyl under approval:
http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/unapproved/
Several of them are missing important information from the plugin metadata
(homepage,
tracker or repository). Could please the authors add these infos, so we can
approve them?
Thanks.
--
Paolo Cavallini
Hi all.
The approval procedure for plugins is somewhat uncertain at the moment. This is
causing delays for users and discontent for developers. I suggest to decide
one, e.g.:
- appointing a plugin manager, who is responsible for either:
- approving it within (one week?)
- sending to another de
26 matches
Mail list logo
