[Qgis-developer] Dubt on plugins without repo and bugtrack

[Matthias Kuhn]

On 02/18/2015 12:13 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Il 18/02/2015 10:53, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>
>> While a bugtracker and a code repository are definitely a good thing to
>> have I do not think that it should be mandatory from the beginning.
>>
>> It should be required that a way to contact the developer (mail), the
>> source code and license are there.
>>
>> At the beginning (experimental) state of a plugin the dev may be worried
>> about other things than the bugtracker and telling him by mail about
>> possible defects is fine (it's him who has to deal with this).
>>
>> Plugins need to be open source, but the way they handle project
>> management and community should be up to the plugin author. So the best
>> thing we can do is send him a notice with "what has been tested by and
>> proven helpful for others in the past".
>>
>> Putting too many requirements in place may scare people off.
>>
>> I think being minimal with regard to requirements is important for
>> experimental plugins and IMHO I would treat it the same way for stable
>> plugins but there is a bit more space to discuss requirements I think.
>>
>> How do others feel?
> Let me recapitulate my experience, after several months of managing the
> publication process:
>
> * most developers add repo and bugtracker anyway
> * most use github for the code, so thie is really a non-issue for them
> * when gently asked if they can fill the metadata, almost all adhere,
> and usually show gratitude for the attention
> * if I remember correctly, nobody ever found adding a repo and a
> bugtracker a stumbling block (occasionally they need help for this, but
> I can do that), nor scaring
> * having the fields as optional in the plugin builder does not encourage
> them to fill the fields
> * before publishing a plugin I check it; not having a bugtracker makes
> things more difficult and far less reliable to keep track of the process
> (I send a mail, the I have to remember, check the thread etc.)
>
> So in short I think making them mandatory will make the process more
> reliable, with a minimal overhead for authors; alternatively, making
> them recommended would be a step in the good direction.
>
> Of course I will not start a flame about this, I can keep on managing
> like this.
>
> All the best.
Thank you for these insights Paolo,

Nice to hear that most plugin developers add bugtracker and repository
anyway.

Switching the fields to recommended instead of optional sounds like a
good step into the right direction. Maybe there could even be a pointer
to github to make it easier for unexperienced developers.

All the best,
Matthias


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20150218/f68662e3/attachment.pgp>