Dear all, >From my user perspective (I am using both GRASS and QGIS, or the other way >around, depends on topic), processing is not really a replacement for the >GRASS plugin. It is handy and probably better for those who do not use GRASS but are interested in single functions / modules.
Yet, once you have a GRASS database with a considerable amount of data, the GRASS plugin is very valuable for accessing those data in QGIS (e.g. for cartography). Also users with no or little GRASS experience benefit from the GRASS plugin in cases where they have access to a GRASS database. That way they can work on it without acquainting themselves with a "new" GIS in depth... Concluding, if you have the possibility to maintain it, keep the GRASS plugin in QGIS! Cheers Stefan -----Original Message----- From: qgis-developer-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:qgis-developer-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Cavallini Sent: 27. mars 2014 12:41 To: Nathan Woodrow Cc: qgis-developer; grass-dev Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] GRASS & QGIS: the future Il 27/03/2014 12:33, Nathan Woodrow ha scritto: > I would vote for dropping the plugin and just updating the processing > plugin. Having both ways is bad for us and bad for users, even worse > when some functions are missing from one but not in the other. I understand well the point; however, the plugin has additional functions, e.g.: * a grass shell * a grass data browser * a grass digitizing environment. Whether these are important or not, it's a matter of users. All the best. -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list qgis-develo...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
