[QGIS-Developer] Are there any real mandatory rules for publishing a plugin?

[Nicolas Godet]

Dear all,

I can’t agree more on the fact that the plugin repo has become a wild jungle with less and less interest in digging into it to find an innovative one.
A few years ago, I spent a few minutes each week looking at each new plugin (because there were only ten or so). Now, I don’t look at new plugins anymore because there are too many of them and most of them are a duplicate of another plugin or, even worse, of a core feature.

I think new rules should be put in place or at least a way to distinguish good, community-approved plugins from the nonsense garbage in the quest for likes for their LinkedIn post.

Kind regards,
Nicolas

Le 29 sept. 2026 à 17:45, Stefano Campus via QGIS-Developer <qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> a écrit :


Good morning,
a few days ago, a plugin [1] was released that is a fork of an existing plugin which had been updated (without the original plugin author being notified) to QGIS 4.
The GitHub repository has issues disabled, so it is not possible to report bugs that are present.

But shouldn’t it be mandatory to have issue reporting enabled?

Furthermore, the proliferation of plugins makes it difficult to find the truly innovative ones.
So we see plugins that replicate core functions, perhaps giving them a more appealing user interface

Where can I report this to the team that coordinates the plugins?
Do you think we should report these anomalies?

Many thanks

stefano

[1] https://github.com/veogeo/go3streetview
_______________________________________________
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/20260930/e90ec076/attachment-0001.htm>