[Qgis-developer] Idea: mandatory PR for all 3.0 api breaks?

[Matthias Kuhn]

Thanks for raising this Nyall

On 10/07/16 00:18, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> I'd like to raise an idea for discussion: should we *require* that all
> 3.0 API breaks are introduced via a PR?
I am in favor of this.

> Advantages I'd see are:
> 1. wider discussion about the nicest way the new/modified API could work
> 2. allows for discussion about whether the documentation for the API
> break is sufficient for plugin developers
>
> Disadvantages:
> 1. More work
> 2. Given that there's going to be a lot of breaks, it could slow
> development down.

I am in favor of this.

Sometimes it's nice to change some things and get other opinions.
Leaving it open for a few days should be enough to give it visibility.

Speaking of which... How are we documenting API changes?
Doxygen, website or documentation?

Matthias

>
> I'm a +0 on this.
>
> Nyall
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer