[QGIS-Developer] Do we really need experimental and non-experimental plugins?

[Paolo Cavallini]

Ho all,

I agree on this interpretation.

All the best.


On 08/26/2018 08:49 PM, Martin Isenburg wrote:
> Hu,
>
> Having just added a new plugin [1] today marked "experimental" my
> expectation was that I would use this "experimental" flag for my first
> one or two or three versions until I am sure it works for others as
> well and until all the initial kinks of a first time plugin submission
> are ironed out. I had the expectation that it would signal to the
> users that this is a new effort and that it may take a few more
> updates to find and fix all the bugs. Since doing this initial
> experimental release this afternoon, for example, I've created already
> a newer version that I was intending to submit soon.
>
> Hence maybe a two week time limit for plugins to
> remain experimental would be a useful way to limit the number
> of experimental plugins to those newly submitted or currently under
> active development and kick out those that are idle in their
> experimental status.
>
> Regards from Zanzibar,
>
> Martin
>
> [1] http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/LAStools/
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018, 21:11 Borys Jurgiel <lists at borysjurgiel.pl
> <mailto:lists at borysjurgiel.pl>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Lists,
>
>     Before I make a QEP I'd like to know your general thoughts.
>
>     After I removed the deprecated plugins filter from the Plugin
>     manager (and
>     make them always visible) [1], Alex suggested doing the same with the
>     Experimental status.
>
>     Initially it was designed for two cases: to mark a whole plugin as
>     experimental, and to just mark the recent version (so a kind of
>     beta). Both
>     cases seem to be popular among authors: at the moment we have 215
>     plugins for
>     master, from which ~40 are experimental only and ~20 are in both
>     versions.
>
>     However, I'm not sure if it makes much sense nowadays. Releasing
>     'stable' and
>     'experimental' versions seems a bit overscaled to me. And there is
>     a simpler
>     solution: If the recent version is buggy, users can just download
>     the last
>     working one from the repo and install from zip. The former case,
>     when the
>     whole plugin is experimental, seems to be often misused: authors
>     can use it to
>     hide some specialised of localised plugisn from majority of users.
>     In fact
>     even I committed such clear misuse, marking the Plugin Reloader as
>     experimental just to not clutter the list for normal users...
>     Another reason
>     could be a shyness. But again, we have the rating stars now and
>     don't need to
>     rely on the author's shyness anymore.
>
>     So... Do you see important reasons to keep this tag? Maybe we should
>     completely drop it? Or just remove the option to hide them from
>     manager,
>     leaving the flask icon on the plugin details page?
>
>     Regards,
>     Borys
>
>     [1] https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/7713
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     QGIS-Developer mailing list
>     QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>     List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>     Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20180827/494a3ecd/attachment.html>