[QGIS-Developer] RES: Do we really need experimental and non-experimental plugins?
jorgealmerio at yahoo.com.br
Mon Aug 27 06:38:03 PDT 2018
I agree with Andreas. I think we need experimental and non-experimental flags to plugins as it is.
And I think that we can NOT restrict the time to be experimental. Because it depends on the author available time to make his plugin stable. Restrict the experimental plugins would reduce the number of plugins been uploaded. To mark as experimental is important for the users and for the authors too, because one can help the other to fix bugs.
De: QGIS-Developer [mailto:qgis-developer-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Em nome de Andreas Neumann
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 27 de agosto de 2018 09:42
Para: qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
Assunto: Re: [QGIS-Developer] Do we really need experimental and non-experimental plugins?
Personally, I think there is a need for the differentiation of
experimental or not experimental.
I'd like to keep it as it is.
Am 27.08.2018 um 02:06 schrieb Nyall Dawson:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 04:11, Borys Jurgiel <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) , Alex suggested doing the same with the
>> Experimental status.
> I'm -1 on this. Experimental plugins can be dangerous (some result in
> crashes, data corruption, etc), and shouldn't be shown by default.
>> 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.
> I think that's overestimating some of our user's abilities -- it would
> take a lot of knowledge that:
> 1. a plugin is at fault
> 2. they can overwrite a plugin manually with an earlier version
> 3. they can download earlier versions of plugins.
> Then, they'd also need to know *which* older plugin version is "good"
> and should be downloaded.
>> 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?
> I think it should be kept. I know of one buggy plugin which recently
> got marked as experimental, and I'm *very* glad to see this particular
> plugin hidden from the majority of our users by default.
> 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
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
More information about the QGIS-Developer