[Qgis-psc] [Qt-for-Python] report of the technical group

[Tim Sutton]

+1 from me too

Regards

Tim

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:05 PM Anita Graser <anitagraser at gmx.at> wrote:

> Dear Denis,
>
> Thank you for the report from your meeting. It is good to see the
> discussions advancing further.
>
>  > * we recommend to use the 5000€ of development budgeted for 2022 for
> the next block to bring a broader set of tests in QGIS core running with
> PySide (under Qt6) so the group could meet again, reevaluate the
> decision and potentially propose a follow up
>  > * considering the short amount of time dedicated and the work already
> done by OPENGIS, it makes sense in terms of efficiency that OPENGIS also
> handles this block (other devs might get involved in the potential next
> ones)
>  > Hereby, we recommend the PSC to sponsor a follow-up on the
> investigation of using Qt-for-Python for QGIS’ bindings.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anita
>
>
> On 02.02.2022 07:45, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
> > Dear PSC,
> >
> > Following the report of the evaluation of Qt-for-Python for QGIS' Python
> > bindings and its conclusion [0], we proposed [1] to create a group of
> > meaningful QGIS
> > developers to propose some recommendations on what to do next.
> >
> > Alessandro, Julien, Matthias, Nyall and I met and the conclusions are
> > the following:
> >
> > * we recognize Qt for Python as a valuable potential solution for
> > QGIS’ bindings
> >
> > * but we cannot take a formal final decision at this stage due to the
> > remaining technical unknowns
> >
> > * the global amount of work required is considerable (50 to 100 days)
> > and imprecise
> >
> > * we recommend to investigate more, proceed block by block and
> > reevaluate at each step if we are still moving in the right direction
> >
> > * this procedure should be a grant for the project to avoid wasting
> > money (e.g. deciding after 90% of the whole effort to finally stick to
> > PyQt) and for the developers (workload estimation)
> >
> > * we recommend to use the 5000€ of development budgeted for 2022 for
> > the next block to bring a broader set of tests in QGIS core running
> > with PySide (under Qt6) so the group could meet again, reevaluate the
> > decision and potentially propose a follow up
> >
> > * considering the short amount of time dedicated and the work already
> > done by OPENGIS, it makes sense in terms of efficiency that OPENGIS
> > also handles this block (other devs might get involved in the
> > potential next ones)
> >
> > Hereby, we recommend the PSC to sponsor a follow-up on the
> > investigation of using Qt-for-Python for QGIS’ bindings.
> >
> > For the technical group,
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > [0] https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/237
> > [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2021-November/009568.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-psc mailing list
> > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://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
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20220212/dc610fb4/attachment.html>