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

[Denis Rouzaud]

Hi all,

My 2 cents:

- the ease of publishing plugins is one of QGIS strengths. Anyone can push
a plugin for his colleagues/friends, no matter how bad it is, it's what
they use to work. I would keep it that way.
- We used to have starred plugins. We could bring back something similar:
we give community voting members the possibility of flagging plugins as
"worth it" (without any security warranty).
- The rest is wild territory.

Cheers,
Denis

Le mer. 30 sept. 2026 à 17:08, Raymond Nijssen via QGIS-Developer <
qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> a écrit :

> Hi, I also agree the plugin policies need to be changed. Also check the
> email from Stefano earlier today. I'm really feeling sorry for the ones
> who are dealing with all the new plugins.
>
> Just some ideas from my side:
>
> More plugin metadata:
> * description where to find the plugin in QGIS
> * plugin language(s)
> * code is generated by AI
> * plugin needs a (paid) account to function
> * plugin has software dependencies
> * a category?
>
> Detect some IMHO real bad quality signs:
> * Icon is still the default plugin builder icon (or even missing)
> * Dialogs are not responsive
>
> Some quality constraints for uploading to the plugin repository could be:
> * Plugin should use as much as possible the QGIS functionality. For
> example, the plugin should not read or write a shapefile from disk, but
> work on vector layers. QGIS can read and write the shapefile (an many
> more).
> * Plugin must be in English, translations can be done by Qt tr() function.
> * If possible, data manipulations must be through processing algorithms
> * All web traffic must be using QgsNetworkAccessManager (to make
> debugging possible)
>
> We could also consider having a paid repo, with paid staff keeping it
> clean, high quality and safe. We could also make it easier to add/find
> other, less strictly maintained, repos.
>
> Love to discuss this next week in Laax!
>
> Raymond
>
>
>
> On 9/30/26 13:59, Régis Haubourg via QGIS-Developer wrote:
> > Hi, I agree that our community repository is really large now and the
> > world has changed. What should be the direction we should take according
> > to you? Something like an official repo, with a real security triage,
> > and a filter of really up to date and active tools?
> > And besides this, community repositories, not activated by default ?
> > Thanks for your ideas, user conference and community meeting is next
> > week and a dedicated session would be wonderful
> > Cheers
> > Régis
> >
> >
> > On 30/09/2026 13:31, Nicolas Godet via QGIS-Developer <qgis-
> > developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
> >> 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 <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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260930/825db043/attachment-0001.htm>