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 think
-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
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 a
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Victor Olaya vola...@gmail.com 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
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Nathan Woodrow madman...@gmail.com 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
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Anita Graser anitagra...@gmx.at wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Victor Olaya vola...@gmail.com 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.
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 li...@linfiniti.com wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013
-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 10:33 AM, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.itwrote:
-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
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
On 12 August 2013 09:33, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it 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?
So is the proposal to change Analysis to Processing?
I don't think there's a reason to remove the SEXTANTE branding as
SEXTANTE does exist outside a QGIS context, ftools is another story
since that only exists in QGIS. I'm split on GDAL Tools, since it is
good to make sure users know what
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 to know that SEXTANTE is an analysis platform,
instead of just
Hi
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Larry Shaffer lar...@dakotacarto.comwrote:
Hi Victor,
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Victor Olaya vola...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
After much thinking and considering some suggestions, I think it would
be a good idea to remove the SEXTANTE branding, and
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.comwrote:
So is the proposal to change Analysis to Processing?
I don't think there's a reason to remove the SEXTANTE branding as
SEXTANTE does exist outside a QGIS context, ftools is another story
since that only exists
Showing SEXTANTE, GDAL Tools, fTools in the menu is the implementation
model leaking into the UI. The users don't care how it's implemented as
long as it works.
- Nathan
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Tim Sutton li...@linfiniti.com wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Alex Mandel
Well there's an interesting dilemma, I mostly agree that core plugins
don't need to be listed in the plugin manager.. except when one wants to
disable them to get faster load times of QGIS, or to hide those features.
Maybe they should be renamed to Core Vector Tools, Core Raster Tools,
Core
+1 here for dropping the SEXTANTE name for the same reason we now have a
Vector menu instead of fTools.
I would vote for a processing menu as sextante goes beyond analysis
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
+1 from me too.
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.
IMO we
+1 from me to renaming.
Maybe we can use Processing or GeoProcessing as new name.
2013/8/10 Nathan Woodrow madman...@gmail.com:
+1 from me too.
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
+1 for changing name.
I like GRASS menus, it has all the analytical modules under vector and
raster menu. Can similar thing be done with SEXTANTE?
Cheers
Saber
On 2013-08-10 12:23, Alexander Bruy wrote:
+1 from me to renaming.
Maybe we can use Processing or GeoProcessing as new name.
Hi
After much thinking and considering some suggestions, I think it would
be a good idea to remove the SEXTANTE branding, and just have
everything with a more descriptive name, such as geoanalysis,
processing, or something like that. In the long-term, that will help
to integrate the analysis
Hi,
Many people refer to Vector and Raster tools as Ftools and GDAL.
Sextante, in my opinion, is not different, so I dont see why we should
change anything. The Sextante menu is called Analysis which makes sense.
And Sextante toolbox seems to be a good name, as well as Sextante Modeler.
...@gmail.com
To: vola...@gmail.com
CC: qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] Renaming SEXTANTE
Hi,Many people refer to Vector and Raster tools as Ftools and GDAL.
Sextante, in my opinion, is not different, so I dont see why we should change
anything. The Sextante menu is called
Hi Victor,
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Victor Olaya vola...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
After much thinking and considering some suggestions, I think it would
be a good idea to remove the SEXTANTE branding, and just have
everything with a more descriptive name, such as geoanalysis,
Agreed (to the doesn't make much sense to users). +1 from me for this much
needed approach to the naming of core plugins.
Concerning branding (and with no disrespect to any third-party projects
brought into core), the brand is not SEXTANTE, not fTools, not GDALTools...
the brand is QGIS.
26 matches
Mail list logo
