[Qgis-psc] outstanding issues

Fri Nov 20 01:59:40 PST 2015

Hi, 

Just some information how I understand Sourcepole's policy - regarding
which improvements end up in the QGIS community release: 

- if it is a paid feature from a customer they do a bigger effort to
bring it into the community release 

- if it is an investment from Sourcepole itself there is less incentive
to bring it into the community release 

The improvement of the analysis tools was not paid by any customer - it
was  a big investment from Sourcepole itself (I believe several months
of coding) and is a differentiator between the QGIS community release
and Sourcepole QGIS enterprise. 

While I don't find this ideal from our (the community point of view) - I
can understand this from a business perspective. I was hoping that - if
we pay their efforts to bring the improvements into master, they would
do it. But currently they have other priorities. There are also several
pending paid features that will be merged into the community edition -
these have priority for Sourcepole currently - which I can understand.
Note that Sourcepole is not against merging this in QGIS.ORG some time -
but currently they have other priorities. 

Hope this clarifies the situation a bit. And it is something to respect.

Primin/Marco - please correct me - if my statements are wrong. 

Andreas 

On 2015-11-20 10:01, Tim Sutton wrote: 

> Hi 
> 
> On 20 Nov 2015, at 10:47, ElPaso <elpaso at itopen.it> wrote:
> 
> Il 20/11/2015 09:26, Richard Duivenvoorde ha scritto:
> On 13-11-15 19:44, Tim Sutton wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On 13 Nov 2015, at 20:40, Giovanni Manghi <giovanni.manghi at gmail.com
> <mailto:giovanni.manghi at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Dear PSC, good afternoon,
> 
> as I said this are not recent issues, and in my point of view very
> very bad.
> 
> Andreas could we allocate some funds for taking care of this and
> releasing 2.8.4? It seems like a very good way to spend donated project
> money.
 Hi Tim,

I miss your email in which you stated the 3 FTools options, and copy
your options below from the lists.osgeo.org [2] lists:

(From Tim's email:)>>>
So I see three options:

1) make small band-aid fixes to fix immediate issues
2) try to sponsor e.g. Nyall or Jürgen to completely rewrite in C++ and
have python bindings added so that they can be used from processing
3) try to sponsor e.g. Victor to implement as processing algs and then
just wrap them as actions in the vector menu
<<< (End copy Tim's email)

One point I like to make is that I think point 2 looks like a waste of
time and energy to me, IF(!) it is really true that SP already did this
but keeping it for their own version until they have time to merge.
Off course everybody has the right to sell and make money from QGIS, but
having a seat in PSC and keeping stuff away from your own community does
not sound OK to me.
But I hope I'm just plain wrong and do not understand the problem :-)

Regards,

Richard Duivenvoorde

Sorry if I also missed some email, can the PSC give an update about the
status of the (hopefully) ongoing discussions with SP for the release of
the C++ fTools port?

IIRC in Las Palmas, it was decided that the PSC on behalf of the QGIS
community should have officially asked to SP clarifications about that.

Yes I have done it. See my previous email. 

> I'd strongly avoid duplicated efforts: if somebody has already done the porting job, we can probably just ask them to release the code and even purchase a licence if necessary.

Again see my previous email, it seems this is not on the table at the
moment. 

Yes I also don't like the idea of duplicating code. I'd also like to
keep good relations with SP as they have a long history of contributions
and support of the QGIS project, so if they don't wish to share the code
back to QGIS upstream, I think we should respect that and make an
alternative plan, even if it is not the ideal situation. I laid out 3
options in my previous email....perhaps just band-aiding the fTools
issues is the most pragmatic until SP are ready to share their C++
reimplementation upstream. 

Alex has also mentioned other work to port it to c++ so maybe we should
look at that and see how much work it will be to get that production
ready.... 

Regards 

Tim 

> -- 
> Alessandro Pasotti
> w3: www.itopen.it [1]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

--

Tim Sutton 

Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source: 

* Desktop GIS programming services 
* Geospatial web development 
* GIS Training 
* Consulting Services 

Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net [3] 
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee 

Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.itopen.it
[2] http://lists.osgeo.org
[3] http://freenode.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20151120/27d6456e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KartozaLogo160x66.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9324 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20151120/27d6456e/attachment.png>