Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Siki Zoltan]

Hi all,

+1

I suppose the plugin approver should check if all the sources are 
available in the source (if no code repository is available), e.g. ui 
files. It would be important for those who would make a fork of a (already 
not supported) plugin.

A minimal documentation in the source may be obligatory.

Zoltan

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Matthias Kuhn wrote:


I would also prefer to keep the entry barrier low.

I.e. if a hobby-programmer does not add these fields to his plugin but
will happily make (the missing bits) of the source code available on
request (GPL states on request IIRC) it should be possible for him to
just upload the plugin, but get warned that he could make people a lot
more happier if he would set these fields. I can imagine people
struggle with git, do bugtracking by email or on an internal tracker,
don't have a homepage... But still make good plugins which could
eventually evolve into projects with all these parts included. There
are a lot of other things people can fail at. And just make these
things hard requirement because they are easy to check does not feel
right for me.

I would also vote for the solution of having different repos (
recommended, bood, creepy )

Matthias
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer


___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Alessandro Pasotti]

2014-08-27 9:40 GMT+02:00 Matthias Kuhn :
> I would also prefer to keep the entry barrier low.
>
> I.e. if a hobby-programmer does not add these fields to his plugin but
> will happily make (the missing bits) of the source code available on
> request (GPL states on request IIRC) it should be possible for him to
> just upload the plugin, but get warned that he could make people a lot
> more happier if he would set these fields. I can imagine people
> struggle with git, do bugtracking by email or on an internal tracker,
> don't have a homepage... But still make good plugins which could
> eventually evolve into projects with all these parts included. There
> are a lot of other things people can fail at. And just make these
> things hard requirement because they are easy to check does not feel
> right for me.
>
> I would also vote for the solution of having different repos (
> recommended, bood, creepy )
>
> Matthias


Hello Mathias,

We already have the "experimental" flag for not production-ready
plugins, do we really need different repos?


-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Matthias Kuhn]

I would also prefer to keep the entry barrier low.

I.e. if a hobby-programmer does not add these fields to his plugin but 
will happily make (the missing bits) of the source code available on 
request (GPL states on request IIRC) it should be possible for him to 
just upload the plugin, but get warned that he could make people a lot 
more happier if he would set these fields. I can imagine people 
struggle with git, do bugtracking by email or on an internal tracker, 
don't have a homepage... But still make good plugins which could 
eventually evolve into projects with all these parts included. There 
are a lot of other things people can fail at. And just make these 
things hard requirement because they are easy to check does not feel 
right for me.

I would also vote for the solution of having different repos ( 
recommended, bood, creepy )

Matthias
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Paolo Cavallini]

Il 26/08/2014 23:01, Tim Sutton ha scritto:

> Yeah me too! Please don't misunderstand me in the discussion - I agree with 
> your
> position about the desirability of having metadata, bug tracker etc. I just 
> don't
> consider it a show stopper if for one or other reason the developer does not 
> have one
> of these fields populated. That said if the rest of the interest people 
> wanted to
> make these feels mandatory I won't argue that enthusiastically against it :-P

It is not a real showstopper anyway: any fake url (or a generic one) will do 
(yes, it
happened).
All the best.
-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
Corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Tim Sutton]

Hi


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Vincent Picavet 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > >> Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> > >>> I agree they should remain optional for now.
> > >>
> > >> After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still
> > >> do not understand what is the advantage of having plugins without
> > >> a repo and bugtracker. I agree that a home page is not a
> > >> necessity.
> > >
> > > +1 Moreover, plugins are GPL licenced, hence the source code should
> > > be shared when a plugin is distributed. Python is a script
> > > language, but still there are some source which should not go into
> > > the final plugin package (.ui files typically). Therefore, a plugin
> > > _must_ have a full source code available somewhere, and a
> > > repository is a logical place for this.
> > >
> > > Globally it is about improving the global quality of the software,
> > > and these steps are the basics a plugin developer should provide.
> >
> > Yes but there are always going to be exceptions to this and I dont
> > believe we should make having these items a sticking point e.g.:
> >
> > * some one in a corporate environment can't easily make a website for
> > the plugin they write
> > * Someone in a coprporate environment works in a repo behind a firewall
> > * a bug tracker is behind a corporate firewall
>
> If someone wants to have a closed environment for their plugin /
> application
> development based on QGIS, then they can setup a closed plugin repository.
>
> We are talking about enforcing rules on the official QGIS plugin
> repository, not
> the other ones, aren't we ?
>

Yes. Another practical example - in the plugin builder you have the dialog
that asks you all about your plugin, including the optional items. But when
you first start to build a plugin you probably don't already have a
website, repo etc. So we can't easily extract these data at the start of
the plugin building process. When it comes time to publishing the plugin we
don't really have a mechanism to retroactively ask for the missing info. So
the workflow is a bit awkward.


>
> > As Ale says, its not that we should encourage people not to have these
> > things, but we should not penalise them for it unduly if they don't.
>
> Free software is about open development, not only open licence. We enforce
> the licence, but it is from my point of view not enough to ensure a piece
> of
> code is called free software.
>
> > I think there are other things that would be more interesting to
> > mandate e.g.:
> >
> > * standardised documentation
> > * HIG compliance
> > * Including a license file
>
> Both points are not mutually exclusive (nor exhaustive).
>
> > I would still like to see us reach a point where we have 'best of
> > breed', 'sanctioned' plugins, and the 'wild west' differentiated for
> > the users.
>
> One of the question I often hear is "what are the best QGIS plugins ?". I
> would like to be able to answer this question with "Official QGIS
> repository are
> all good".
>

Yeah me too! Please don't misunderstand me in the discussion - I agree with
your position about the desirability of having metadata, bug tracker etc. I
just don't consider it a show stopper if for one or other reason the
developer does not have one of these fields populated. That said if the
rest of the interest people wanted to make these feels mandatory I won't
argue that enthusiastically against it :-P


> Or maybe we want a QGIS official plugin repository, and a "staging" or
> "contrib" one, with different levels of rules and quality ?
>
>
Yes I would like to see us get there in the end. We actually discussed it a
bit in Vienna but I think we don't have the resources to put this into
place yet.

Regards

Tim


Vincent
>
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > > Vincent ___
> > > Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>



-- 
--
Tim Sutton
Visit http://kartoza.com  to find out about open
source:
 * Desktop GIS programming services
 * Geospatial web development
* GIS Training
* Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
---
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Vincent Picavet]

Hello,

> >> Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> >>> I agree they should remain optional for now.
> >> 
> >> After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still
> >> do not understand what is the advantage of having plugins without
> >> a repo and bugtracker. I agree that a home page is not a
> >> necessity.
> > 
> > +1 Moreover, plugins are GPL licenced, hence the source code should
> > be shared when a plugin is distributed. Python is a script
> > language, but still there are some source which should not go into
> > the final plugin package (.ui files typically). Therefore, a plugin
> > _must_ have a full source code available somewhere, and a
> > repository is a logical place for this.
> > 
> > Globally it is about improving the global quality of the software,
> > and these steps are the basics a plugin developer should provide.
> 
> Yes but there are always going to be exceptions to this and I dont
> believe we should make having these items a sticking point e.g.:
> 
> * some one in a corporate environment can't easily make a website for
> the plugin they write
> * Someone in a coprporate environment works in a repo behind a firewall
> * a bug tracker is behind a corporate firewall

If someone wants to have a closed environment for their plugin / application 
development based on QGIS, then they can setup a closed plugin repository.

We are talking about enforcing rules on the official QGIS plugin repository, 
not 
the other ones, aren't we ?

> As Ale says, its not that we should encourage people not to have these
> things, but we should not penalise them for it unduly if they don't.

Free software is about open development, not only open licence. We enforce 
the licence, but it is from my point of view not enough to ensure a piece of 
code is called free software.

> I think there are other things that would be more interesting to
> mandate e.g.:
> 
> * standardised documentation
> * HIG compliance
> * Including a license file

Both points are not mutually exclusive (nor exhaustive).

> I would still like to see us reach a point where we have 'best of
> breed', 'sanctioned' plugins, and the 'wild west' differentiated for
> the users.

One of the question I often hear is "what are the best QGIS plugins ?". I 
would like to be able to answer this question with "Official QGIS repository 
are 
all good".
Or maybe we want a QGIS official plugin repository, and a "staging" or 
"contrib" one, with different levels of rules and quality ?

Vincent

> 
> Regards
> 
> Tim
> 
> > Vincent ___
> > Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Paolo Cavallini]

Il 25/08/2014 22:07, Trevor Wiens ha scritto:

> I would encourage QGIS developers to try to keep balanced requirements to 
> ensure that
> corporate, academic and volunteer contributors and users can all benefit.

Creating a public repo an bugtracker on GitHub takes 3 minuts at most. I do not 
see
this as an heavy requirement.
Having them lessen the burden on a company, it does not increase it, as it 
allow more
people to cooperate.
All the best.
-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
Corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Trevor Wiens]

Since I'm not a contributor to the main project, just some plugins, I'm not
sure my voice will count for much but I think Tim hits on an important
point.

As as a developer of plugins for my company, I have created repos and bug
trackers for the plugins I created because I was asked to but they are not
regularly used, watched or maintained. If anything they are worse than none
at all.

I understand the interest in standard documentation, but even that is often
less than ideal from a companies perspective. Speaking generally companies
provide plugins for two reasons. First, they are something the company
needs and is willing to share with others. Second, they are useful tools
for the company's clients to use with the companies commercial tools or
services. In both cases plugins are, to some extent, a means to promote the
company so hosting documentation on the company site is more valuable to
the company then distributing all of it with the plugin.

I would encourage QGIS developers to try to keep balanced requirements to
ensure that corporate, academic and volunteer contributors and users can
all benefit.

TSW


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tim Sutton  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 25/08/2014 17:46, Vincent Picavet wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >> Hi all.
> >>
> >> Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> >>> I agree they should remain optional for now.
> >>
> >> After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still
> >> do not understand what is the advantage of having plugins without
> >> a repo and bugtracker. I agree that a home page is not a
> >> necessity.
> >
> > +1 Moreover, plugins are GPL licenced, hence the source code should
> > be shared when a plugin is distributed. Python is a script
> > language, but still there are some source which should not go into
> > the final plugin package (.ui files typically). Therefore, a plugin
> > _must_ have a full source code available somewhere, and a
> > repository is a logical place for this.
> >
> > Globally it is about improving the global quality of the software,
> > and these steps are the basics a plugin developer should provide.
> >
>
> Yes but there are always going to be exceptions to this and I dont
> believe we should make having these items a sticking point e.g.:
>
> * some one in a corporate environment can't easily make a website for
> the plugin they write
> * Someone in a coprporate environment works in a repo behind a firewall
> * a bug tracker is behind a corporate firewall
>
> As Ale says, its not that we should encourage people not to have these
> things, but we should not penalise them for it unduly if they don't.
>
> I think there are other things that would be more interesting to
> mandate e.g.:
>
> * standardised documentation
> * HIG compliance
> * Including a license file
>
> etc.
>
> I would still like to see us reach a point where we have 'best of
> breed', 'sanctioned' plugins, and the 'wild west' differentiated for
> the users.
>
> Regards
>
> Tim
>
>
> > Vincent ___
> > Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> >
>
> - --
> - --
>
> Tim Sutton
> Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
>  * Desktop GIS programming services
>  * Geospatial web development
>  * GIS Training
>  * Consulting Services
> Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
> Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
> - --
> Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlP7kLsACgkQqk07qZdiYjd3oQCfXty1OR7OcrPqMpeEDL81E9Sz
> 1UwAnRMiQ++zIK9lgFXN4uOSVY2lCpFd
> =OYHU
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>



-- 
Trevor Wiens
Apropos Information Systems
aproposinfosystems.com
Calgary, Alberta
Ph. 403-973-5901
Fax 780-666-4580
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Tim Sutton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 25/08/2014 17:46, Vincent Picavet wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>> Hi all.
>> 
>> Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>>> I agree they should remain optional for now.
>> 
>> After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still
>> do not understand what is the advantage of having plugins without
>> a repo and bugtracker. I agree that a home page is not a
>> necessity.
> 
> +1 Moreover, plugins are GPL licenced, hence the source code should
> be shared when a plugin is distributed. Python is a script
> language, but still there are some source which should not go into
> the final plugin package (.ui files typically). Therefore, a plugin
> _must_ have a full source code available somewhere, and a 
> repository is a logical place for this.
> 
> Globally it is about improving the global quality of the software,
> and these steps are the basics a plugin developer should provide.
> 

Yes but there are always going to be exceptions to this and I dont
believe we should make having these items a sticking point e.g.:

* some one in a corporate environment can't easily make a website for
the plugin they write
* Someone in a coprporate environment works in a repo behind a firewall
* a bug tracker is behind a corporate firewall

As Ale says, its not that we should encourage people not to have these
things, but we should not penalise them for it unduly if they don't.

I think there are other things that would be more interesting to
mandate e.g.:

* standardised documentation
* HIG compliance
* Including a license file

etc.

I would still like to see us reach a point where we have 'best of
breed', 'sanctioned' plugins, and the 'wild west' differentiated for
the users.

Regards

Tim


> Vincent ___ 
> Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> 

- -- 
- --

Tim Sutton
Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
 * Desktop GIS programming services
 * Geospatial web development
 * GIS Training
 * Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
- --
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlP7kLsACgkQqk07qZdiYjd3oQCfXty1OR7OcrPqMpeEDL81E9Sz
1UwAnRMiQ++zIK9lgFXN4uOSVY2lCpFd
=OYHU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
<>___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Alessandro Pasotti]

2014-08-25 17:46 GMT+02:00 Vincent Picavet :
> Hello,
>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>> > I agree they should remain optional for now.
>>
>> After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still do not
>> understand what is the advantage of having plugins without a repo and
>> bugtracker. I agree that a home page is not a necessity.
>
> +1
> Moreover, plugins are GPL licenced, hence the source code should be shared
> when a plugin is distributed.
> Python is a script language, but still there are
> some source which should not go into the final plugin package (.ui files
> typically).

This is not always the case, I know at least one plugin without ui files.

But the question is not if a plugin generally needs a
repository/tracker, of course it does.

The question is if a plugin can be uploaded in the official plugins
repository even if it misses a repository/tracker. There is some
automatic validation in place and automatic rules do not admit
exceptions.


-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Vincent Picavet]

Hello,

> Hi all.
> 
> Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> > I agree they should remain optional for now.
> 
> After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still do not
> understand what is the advantage of having plugins without a repo and
> bugtracker. I agree that a home page is not a necessity.

+1
Moreover, plugins are GPL licenced, hence the source code should be shared 
when a plugin is distributed. Python is a script language, but still there are 
some source which should not go into the final plugin package (.ui files 
typically). 
Therefore, a plugin _must_ have a full source code available somewhere, and a 
repository is a logical place for this.

Globally it is about improving the global quality of the software, and these 
steps are the basics a plugin developer should provide.

Vincent
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Alessandro Pasotti]

2014-08-25 17:29 GMT+02:00 Paolo Cavallini :
> Hi all.
>
> Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>
>> I agree they should remain optional for now.
>
> After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still do not 
> understand
> what is the advantage of having plugins without a repo and bugtracker.
> I agree that a home page is not a necessity.
>


Paolo,

of course the question is not wether is there an advantage but on the
contrary if is there a penalty without that informations.

IMHO the answer: most of the times yes, but not always.

For simpler plugin, a repository is probably not particularly useful
nor is a bug tracker.

But since the final approval step is human-driven, nobody stops you
from unapproving a particular plugin if you really miss one of that
metadata.

-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi all.

Il 25/08/2014 17:06, Tim Sutton ha scritto:

> I agree they should remain optional for now.

After a few months of managing the plugin approval queue, I still do not 
understand
what is the advantage of having plugins without a repo and bugtracker.
I agree that a home page is not a necessity.

All the best.
-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
Corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

Re: [Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Tim Sutton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi

On 25/08/2014 17:01, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It seems like most of us are still confused about mandatory
> metadata in Python plugins.
> 
> There have been a lot of discussions on this topic in the past and
> I would like to resume the discussion.
> 
> IIRC the most debated questions were:
> 
> * if "homepage" must be mandatory * if "tracker" must be mandatory 
> * if "repository" must be mandatory
> 
> We somewhat agreed about leaving those metadata optional but
> "highly recommended", this means that the automatic validator still
> accepts the plugin but a warning is shown to the author and to
> website staff users.
> 
> The plugin approval is not automatic, if somebody thinks that for
> a particular plugin one of those metadata are absolutely necessary 
> he/she can just unapprove the plugin.
> 
> I'm still convinced that the a.m. metadata should be recommended
> but not mandatory but of course we can change this policy.
> 
> If I missed the point in which a different decision was taken,
> please let me know and I will add those rules to the validator.
> 


I agree they should remain optional for now.

Regards

Tim

- -- 
- --

Tim Sutton
Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
 * Desktop GIS programming services
 * Geospatial web development
 * GIS Training
 * Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
- --
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlP7UOEACgkQqk07qZdiYjerFwCeNJ9LTGXxE5KY9frDtPRkMqKL
vjQAoNPLSM5d6Z38dlZLFHwWC82cymUX
=x2uO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
<>___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Qgis-developer] Python plugins mandatory metadata

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Hi,

It seems like most of us are still confused about mandatory metadata
in Python plugins.

There have been a lot of discussions on this topic in the past and I
would like to resume the discussion.

IIRC the most debated questions were:

* if "homepage" must be mandatory
* if "tracker" must be mandatory
* if "repository" must be mandatory

We somewhat agreed about leaving those metadata optional but "highly
recommended", this means that the automatic validator still accepts
the plugin but a warning is shown to the author and to website staff
users.

The plugin approval is not automatic, if somebody thinks that for a
particular plugin one of those metadata are absolutely necessary
he/she can just unapprove the plugin.

I'm still convinced that the a.m. metadata should be recommended but
not mandatory but of course we can change this policy.

If I missed the point in which a different decision was taken, please
let me know and I will add those rules to the validator.

-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer