On 13-02-14 20:23, Alex Mandel wrote: >> For the first point (orange block) can we standardize on Github? Can we >> ask from the average plugin author to put his code on Github? Because >> then an author has both an issuetracker and either a README or a wiki. >> > > We have always stated that any issue tracker/code hosting is acceptable. > Including: > > github, bitbucket, sourceforge, or hub.qgis.org > > We encourage the use of hub.qgis.org for the issue tracker and at least > a clone of a git repo if it's hosted elsewhere. > 1. So tickets can all be on hub.qgis where a qgis user is likely to go > anyways > 2. So it's possible for the community to easily adopt abandoned plugins, > or combine additional developers from other plugins. > > I disagree with the need for a standard as coders should have > flexibility in their choice. I do agree that they should have something > though, hence we offer hosting if they're looking for the simplest option.
Clear. I'm with you that we do not need a standard for coders. I want to keep it easy, even for inexperienced coders to create and publish their plugins. Myself I started with my plugins sources on hub, but had problems with that. That is the reason I moved to Github (and the fact that it has a nice issuetracker etc). So not forcing to some kind of system. Just enforcing at least a public code repository + email. And preferably a issuetracker and a webpage. Agreed? Regards, Richard Duivenvoorde _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer