[Qgis-developer] plugins: what's next?

[Niccolò Marchi]

hello devs!
after the good job done with the plugin-repo, I was wondering if there is any 
idea about trying to optimize plugins through the merging of the similar ones. 
something like having a package of more plugins related to a single topic (i.e. 
qProf + ProfileTool + VogisProfilTool   or   all the CAD ones, etc).
in this way would be easier to concentrate single devs' efforts on a single 
plugin instead of having more than one, and obviously it turns useful also for 
users not to be lost among the hundreds already present.

does it make sense? may be hard to organise the working groups? or it may lead 
to a heavier loading of the software?

sorry if it sounds as a silly question.

all the best!

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

Re: [Qgis-developer] plugins: what's next?

[Paolo Cavallini]

Il 30/08/2014 18:55, Niccolò Marchi ha scritto:

> about trying to optimize plugins through the merging of the similar ones. 
> something
> like having a package of more plugins related to a single topic (i.e. qProf +
> ProfileTool + VogisProfilTool   or   all the CAD ones, etc).
> in this way would be easier to concentrate single devs' efforts on a single 
> plugin
> instead of having more than one, and obviously it turns useful also for users 
> not to
> be lost among the hundreds already present.
> 
> does it make sense? may be hard to organise the working groups? or it may 
> lead to a
> heavier loading of the software?

I personally would like this very much. However, it is a matter of plugin 
authors
goodwill. Could you start finding a small group of plugins and try to convince 
their
authors of the beauty of unification?
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] plugins: what's next?

[Alessandro Pasotti]

2014-09-01 9:31 GMT+02:00 Paolo Cavallini :
> Il 30/08/2014 18:55, Niccolò Marchi ha scritto:
>
>> about trying to optimize plugins through the merging of the similar ones. 
>> something
>> like having a package of more plugins related to a single topic (i.e. qProf +
>> ProfileTool + VogisProfilTool   or   all the CAD ones, etc).
>> in this way would be easier to concentrate single devs' efforts on a single 
>> plugin
>> instead of having more than one, and obviously it turns useful also for 
>> users not to
>> be lost among the hundreds already present.

The plugin website has two underused features that could be beneficial
to put some plugins in stronger evidence:
"featured"  flag and "score" (the "stars" coming from the voting
system plug the number of downloads weighted with the age of the
plugin, if I remember correctly).

The purpose of those "stars" and the "featured" flag was also to ease
the choice among a group of similar plugins.

The problem is that nobody took the time and responsibility to test
and examine all old and new plugins and to flag them.
Any comment or proposal in order to make this classification better
would be welcome.

Comments on plugins would maybe also help, see what happens with the
two biggest plugins markeplaces I know:
http://extensions.joomla.org/
https://wordpress.org/plugins/
Comments are often very useful (when the author doesn't offer a
discount for every positive review).

>>
>> does it make sense? may be hard to organise the working groups? or it may 
>> lead to a
>> heavier loading of the software?
>
> I personally would like this very much. However, it is a matter of plugin 
> authors
> goodwill. Could you start finding a small group of plugins and try to 
> convince their
> authors of the beauty of unification?


Good luck :)

Sorry for being a bit OT but about the benefits/problems of
cooperation and forking and other anti-patterns [1] affecting and
empowering the FOSS ecosystem I strongly suggest this amazing video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pOxlazS3zs (be sure to watch it until the end)


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern#Software_engineering
and, in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here#In_computing
-- 
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] plugins: what's next?

[Olivier Dalang]

Following Alessandro's idea, I'd love to be able to attach
screenshots/video captures to the description.
A capture of the GUI is often much more informative about what to expect
than a longish description.

And about merging similar plugins, I don't know if we can achieve a global
policy. It's quite natural for plugins developers to work independently.

IMO, most important is that users and devs are aware of other similar
plugins. It would even be worth to have a "similar plugins" field, which
could be contributed to just like user comments. Once aware of other
similar plugins, the dev of the least advanced plugin will probably stop
working on his plugin, so that it will automatically get pruned from the
list with upcoming versions of qgis. In the meantime, the rating+comments
system allows the user to quickly know in what order to try the plugins.


Best regards,

Olivier




2014-09-01 9:52 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Pasotti :

> 2014-09-01 9:31 GMT+02:00 Paolo Cavallini :
> > Il 30/08/2014 18:55, Niccolò Marchi ha scritto:
> >
> >> about trying to optimize plugins through the merging of the similar
> ones. something
> >> like having a package of more plugins related to a single topic (i.e.
> qProf +
> >> ProfileTool + VogisProfilTool   or   all the CAD ones, etc).
> >> in this way would be easier to concentrate single devs' efforts on a
> single plugin
> >> instead of having more than one, and obviously it turns useful also for
> users not to
> >> be lost among the hundreds already present.
>
> The plugin website has two underused features that could be beneficial
> to put some plugins in stronger evidence:
> "featured"  flag and "score" (the "stars" coming from the voting
> system plug the number of downloads weighted with the age of the
> plugin, if I remember correctly).
>
> The purpose of those "stars" and the "featured" flag was also to ease
> the choice among a group of similar plugins.
>
> The problem is that nobody took the time and responsibility to test
> and examine all old and new plugins and to flag them.
> Any comment or proposal in order to make this classification better
> would be welcome.
>
> Comments on plugins would maybe also help, see what happens with the
> two biggest plugins markeplaces I know:
> http://extensions.joomla.org/
> https://wordpress.org/plugins/
> Comments are often very useful (when the author doesn't offer a
> discount for every positive review).
>
> >>
> >> does it make sense? may be hard to organise the working groups? or it
> may lead to a
> >> heavier loading of the software?
> >
> > I personally would like this very much. However, it is a matter of
> plugin authors
> > goodwill. Could you start finding a small group of plugins and try to
> convince their
> > authors of the beauty of unification?
>
>
> Good luck :)
>
> Sorry for being a bit OT but about the benefits/problems of
> cooperation and forking and other anti-patterns [1] affecting and
> empowering the FOSS ecosystem I strongly suggest this amazing video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pOxlazS3zs (be sure to watch it until
> the end)
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern#Software_engineering
> 
> and, in particular:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here#In_computing
> 
> --
> Alessandro Pasotti
> w3:   www.itopen.it
> ___
> 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