[Qgis-developer] Pending PRs

Nyall Dawson nyall.dawson at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 18:36:07 PDT 2015

On 7 October 2015 at 03:01, Hugo Mercier <hugo.mercier at oslandia.com> wrote:
> I've been using them very carefully, since I don't want to force
> anything and prefer to know the feelings about design / architecture of
> other devs before adding something. I consider this to be a good practice.

+1 on this - I also think it's good practice to get feedback/other
dev's perspective on stuff like this.

> But it becomes problematic when deadlines should be met, usually because
> funders have to know with some confidence in which release a new feature
> is going to be included.
> And I thought in this case if minor aspects (or even bugs) of a PR is
> being discussed as the feature freeze is pronounced, the PR could be
> merged provided fixes will be delivered asap (including during the freeze).
> #2189 had a bit more bugs than I initially thought (UI parts are not
> always easy to test), but I don't think it has major design issues ...
> and I am not sure other devs think it has (Nyall ? Martin ?). So I don't
> understand why it's stuck.

My apologies for any delay I've caused in this PR - I've tried to
respond as quickly as possible, but that's not always easy. It
actually took a considerable amount of time to review/test this PR
(and honestly, it didn't help that the initial implementation was
quite buggy and confusing to test ;)

I'd still be in favor of merging this PR for 2.12 (given the extensive
testing given to the latest version), but that's Jürgen's call to
make, not mine. As mentioned in the PR, it still should be looked over
by Martin as I have no experience with the layer tree code and can't
make a call on those changes.


> In this situation it's exactly as if I've been granted useless commit
> rights ...
> The #2322 is a little bit more of a hack, so I recognize there may be
> matter of discussion (Jürgen ? Marco ?)
> On 01/10/2015 09:48, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>> +1 to merge if other devs agree
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 5:45 pm Hugo Mercier <hugo.mercier at oslandia.com
>> <mailto:hugo.mercier at oslandia.com>> wrote:
>>     Hi,
>>     I've submitted two Pull Requests :
>>     https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/2189 and
>>     https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/2322 that stay in a undetermined
>>     state ...
>>     The first one (2189) is of particular interest here. It has been opened
>>     in the beginning of July and I've been fixing issues spotted by others
>>     (mostly Nyall), unfortunately at a lower pace than I would have liked,
>>     busy on other projects.
>>     But agreement from other devs seemed needed to accept it. And ... this
>>     agreement never came before the beginning of the feature freeze ...
>>     So can you confirm this is now out of the scope of the 2.12 ? Or is
>>     there a chance this would be an exception ?
>>     I guess this happened because everyone is busy, but it is not an easy
>>     situation for me.
>>     It becomes hard to target a particular release version when selling the
>>     integration of new features and then it does not enforce confidence of
>>     funders, I think.
>>     Do you see solutions to that for the future ? Probably the problem is
>>     that integration of paid development depends on decisions made by
>>     third-party developers that do their best to review PRs, but without
>>     guarantee (i.e. are not paid specifically for that). What do you think ?
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Qgis-developer mailing list
>>     Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list