[QGIS-Developer] QGIS 4.0 - let's start some early discussions!

[Geo DrinX]

Il giorno mar 25 giu 2019 alle ore 18:16 C Hamilton <adenaculture at gmail.com>
ha scritto:

> Let me share my experience with the jump from QGIS 2 to QGIS 3. I have
> been trying to get QGIS used by the US Government and make it an option
> rather than just relying on ESRI. This has been very difficult but I was
> making progress. I had offices that were primarily using QGIS and who were
> developing scripts to handle their work flow. When QGIS 3 came out they got
> so frustrated with the lack of documentation and the complete break of the
> API, with no program that would take their scripts and make them QGIS 3
> compatible, that they completely abandoned QGIS and went back to ESRI.
> Despite the fact that I love QGIS 3 and think it is better than QGIS 2, I
> find there is now less interest in using QGIS. I have less customers then I
> used to have and it will probably take at least another year or two to get
> back to where I was at.
>
> I know that as developers we want to continue to improve the code, add new
> features, and have a fun time. Fun tends not to be associated with
> documentation. I cannot tell you how important the documentation and
> training materials are. I would prefer seeing less new features but make
> sure the documentation is excellent and up-to-date. The PyQGIS
> documentation really needs a lot of work. It is not sufficient to let the
> functions and variable names explain what they do. Each variable needs to
> explained in such a way that the programmer will understand what effect it
> will have when they change the values. This is one thing that ESRI has done
> well - provide tons of documentation and training.
>
> I hope these observations will be helpful to you as you plan QGIS 4. I
> don't want to go through what I have been going through with QGIS 3.
>


I'm wondering what need there was in changing the names of the functions to
call in the api qgis 3.

Was it not easier to leave a formal compatibility with the past?

No one should have rewritten everything. porting would have been easier.

Can you indicate the discussion thread where this choice was approved?

thank you.

GeoDrinX



>
> Cheers,
>
> Calvin
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:33 AM Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 25/06/19 13:46, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
>>
>> > And with a good communication about a "gentle" break I'm confident that
>> > we'll have it easier this time.
>>
>> agreed fully, good communication on these matters is of crucial
>> importance to let people accept new versions at move at the appropriate
>> time, to minimize noise.
>> Given the wide variety of networks, it will be difficult to properly
>> spread the tight word. Maybe we should have *official announcements* in
>> these occasions.
>> Also, I think the already proposed dynamic qgis access page could help a
>> lot here.
>> Cheers.
>> --
>> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
>> QGIS.ORG Chair:
>> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20190628/509000c3/attachment.html>