[QGIS-Developer] Do we really need experimental and non-experimental plugins?
Paolo Cavallini
cavallini at faunalia.it
Sun Aug 26 21:16:20 PDT 2018
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>
More information about the QGIS-Developer
mailing list