[Qgis-psc] Easier approval for experimental plugins?

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

I’m with Andreas on this. Our intent is to shore up the plugin repo and improve the quality and security of what is made available from the plugin repo. Most users probably cannot discern the difference between experimental and non-experimental plugins and the security implications that the proposal you received will have.

Regards

Tim



> On 09 Jun 2016, at 18:10, Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> hm - I am very sceptical about self approval. This would really open the door for all sorts of malware and security issues, if stuff isn't reviewed at all. After all, even with our disclaimer, the reputation of the project is at stake if we would have a plugin with malware. The review by Paolo is at least some sort of barrier against that.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> On 09.06.2016 17:36, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have just been suggested a possible improvement of our approval
>> process: perhaps the experimental plugins could be distributed with less
>> stringent criteria, e.g. allowing self approval, to allow quicker
>> distribution of test version.
>> What is your opinion about this?
>> All the best.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc




---

Tim Sutton
QGIS Project Steering Committee Chair
tim at qgis.org




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20160609/0e8f6e02/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: qgis_icon.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20160609/0e8f6e02/attachment.jpg>