ot really in the same way. I'd much rather have
good documentation than continuously-tested documentation.
Maybe that's an artificial tradeoff and we can have both.
But I'm not convinced (not that I need to be; again, I'm new here and
so far mostly send long emails.)
--jh...@mit.
quests.
New and potential contributors don't get discouraged.
What's the reason for putting up barriers to documentation like this?
Problems with spam or low quality edits? Can I find a robust discussion
of the tradeoffs in the list archives?
--jh...@mit.edu
John Hawkinson
_
Good documentation processes encourage documentation to land when
features land. If the process doesn't do that, QGIS will always be
falling behind.
--jh...@mit.edu
John Hawkinson
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
though, most of the changes didn't actually change
individual icons; rather, many add icons or reorganize the pallette.)
Hopefully that's useful to think about.
--jh...@mit.edu
John Hawkinson
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@
I think they're still concerns?
So I guess I would be more comfortable if the discussion acknowledged
these tradeoffs.
--jh...@mit.edu
John Hawkinson
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info: https://list
ld definitely be misreading this.
--jh...@mit.edu
John Hawkinson
___
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
> An outstanding question is what range we should allow? Behind the
> scenes it's generally going to be converted to a 0-255 value, but for
> users a 0-100% may be more explanatory. Opinions?
The tools I use again express opacity in 0-100%, and I think that's
the correct thing for the user interfa
I guess I should chime in here on this thread, too :), since I was invoked
originally:
> Following up on one of the points raised by John Hawkison (author of
> the famous "my first weekend with QGIS" email),
Definitely to +1 on Stroke.
As for transparency vs. opacity, as I wrote in that email:
