[Qgis-developer] [Qgis-psc] Resurrecting the RFC (QEP - QGIS Enhancement Proposal)

[Vincent Picavet]

Hi Nathan,

I was thinking the same way lately. QGIS has now plenty of feature, and while 
this is really great, our technical debt seems to be increasing a lot 
recently.
Having a formal process for major new features as MapServer and GDAL have, 
would allow to have a much more coherent way of developping qgis.
Strong +1 on the idea then.
Vincent

Le jeudi 21 août 2014 14:26:39, Nathan Woodrow a écrit :
> Hey all,
> 
> I would like to raise something I have been considering for a while now. We
> are becoming a large project, in code and users, and there has been some
> recent issues of developers doing work only for there to be disagreements
> on the implementation. I would like resurrect the use of RFCs, or I think
> would should name them QEP (QGIS Enhancement Proposal because that sounds
> much cooler :)
> 
> My thinking behind this was:
> 
> - QGIS is picking up pace in popularity and use so we need something to
> formalise the future feature set and any improvements for the next version.
>  Most people know the Python project uses the idea of PEPs in order to
> document what new major features are coming in X version and to explain the
> rational, or reasons .  I have found this handy to be able to look at
> detailed overview of why a feature made it or didn't, or when it might make
> it, or if ever.
> 
> - This is more then just using the bug tracker to log future features. This
> is something where we can have more detail and then break it down into sub
> tasks which can live in the bug tracker but linked to the QEP (RFC).
> 
> - The QEP should also have formal voting and discussion around the
> proposal. This should be limited to a small pool of developers.
> 
> - The QEP could also list changes the API, or if breaking changes need to
> be made.
> 
> - Things like how the new feature might fit into other future plans.
> 
> - QEPs should list as much detail as possible in order to help everyone see
> the bigger picture with the feature or change.
> 
> Another reason I was thinking about this was in order to consolidate major
> features and collaborate better. Emails are fine but get lost and forgotten
> very easily, the bug tracker is the same.  The QEP can link to the emails
> and tickets for future reference.  QEPs should be the central point for the
> feature linking to everything that is related.
> 
> Tim has been using GitHub for inaSAFE RFCs and it looks good. IMO I would
> say we should use that.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Nathan