Il 01/02/2018 07:21, Victor Olaya ha scritto: > +1 from me. This is exactly the reasoning behind my original proposal > of removing providers from core. Whether the plugin is easy to > maintain or not, it is better to do it outside. People responsible of > the plugin can release whenever they want, and they can do changes > without having to do PRs to the main repo (so less burden for core > devs) > > A plugin with a provider has much more to do with the provider app > than with QGIS, and it makes sense to maintain it as a separate thing, > and, if possible, done by the people that better know the external app > (like the OTB team in the case of OTB)
Thanks Alex, Nyall, Victor for thoughts. It indeed makes sense. What can happen realistically is, IMHO: * someone will pop up taking the now orphaned providers, as it is happening now for OTB --> success * no one will find the resources for this, and QGIS will miss hundreds of important algs --> failure Of course this second possibility is scary to all those, that rely on these algs. I am finding easier since too many years to find resources for fancy styling and other cartographic tasks than for hard core analyses, so I tend to be pessimistic, but let's see. Thanks again. -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer