[Qgis-developer] Directions needed for GSOC Proposal

Alister Hood Alister.Hood at synergine.com
Sun Mar 25 17:53:09 EDT 2012

> Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:20:34 +0530
> From: "aruntheguy at gmail.com" <aruntheguy at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Qgis-developer] Directions needed for GSOC Proposal
> To: qgis-developer <qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACbtZwQdM8AgW_Q-jMF-zEV9fFDaCA8dTwJXSHk7Pt1tE-dOWQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Hello all,
> There have been prevoius discussions about this GSOC thing. Adding
> analytical power to the software can be the best thing that can be done to
> QGIS. Initially I was of the idea of porting fTools to C++, but then
> realized the processing framework to be a better option. Now that there
> are
> two frameworks on the prowl, its getting a bit difficult to draft the
> proposal.
> Which one is going to be adopted? And is the one that will be adopted
> ready
> to take in a GSOC student and provide mentoring? While I have been  a
> self-learner for the most part, its still a serious thing when we talk
> about code going live into the project.
> Or should I probably throw in the towel and pick up something like
> Symbology improvements?
> Directions please.

What symbology improvements would you be looking at doing?  There are quite a few tickets for improvements to the automatic labeling ;)

Ftools seems to have taken the limelight, but what about the idea of a suite of topology tools, which I also mentioned at the same time as the ftools idea?  It really came from Alexandre (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2011-May/012060.html), but it's something that QGIS users often say they need to use another GIS for.
Would this also be tied up with the processing framework like the Ftools idea is?


More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list