[SPAM] RE: [Qgis-user] Public Repository for plugins...
David.Sampson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
Tue Jun 16 11:55:33 EDT 2009
I don't want to speak on behalf of the community, I just came across what I figured would work for the central repo and kinda matches typical; open source projects that facilitate the three options.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: qgis-user-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:qgis-user-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Borys Jurgiel
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 09:44
> To: qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: [Qgis-user] Public Repository for plugins...
> Tuesday 16 of June 2009 15:03:11 Sampson, David napisał(a):
> > Just as I am going through a pseudo code exercise of release.py I
> > see three
> > 1. Current and previous stable versions
> > 2. A Beta version is is being tested an on its way to
> stable. BETA
> > 3. An unstable snapshot of the development trunk
> > If we assume that most new feature development is done in
> the branches
> > and
> merged to trunk, then trunk should not be all the harry and
> trashy. The branches would be way to unstable.
> > This way then regular users can try unstable and beta
> version of the
> > plugins
> wihtout needing to get into SVN carnage.
> > For now I will call trunk snapshots BETA
> > Just some thoughts.
> So do we want to have three levels? The present
> "experimental" tagging style is related to the fact that many
> authors just release either plugins considerable as stable,
> or just some concepts. But if we are going to develop more
> complicated plugins (and it seems we are), there is a reason
> to do more precise tagging, of course
> Qgis-user mailing list
> Qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Qgis-user