On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>
> What about using "semantic versioning": http://semver.org/
>
> I've been using it lately as it's the default for node.js modules.
> It lets you express your requirement in a more powerful way.
Hi
that kind of versioning has been used by
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:39:38AM -0800, Gary Sherman wrote:
> Greetings developers,
>
> I think we should consider a way to flag existing plugins that are not
> compatible with the new 2.0 api. This will improve user experience by
> preventing install of plugins that do not work with the users c
+1
I think this is very important to reduce stress caused by the API and
therefore plugin break.
Anita
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Gary Sherman wrote:
> Greetings developers,
>
> I think we should consider a way to flag existing plugins that are not
> compatible with the new 2.0 api. This
Me wrote:
> We'll discuss a target architecture for 2.x as soon as Alessandro and
> Alex are here
Oh, Alex Bruy isn't coming. So we'll try to discuss it on IRC.
___
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman
Dnia czwartek, 11 kwietnia 2013 o 17:39:38 Gary Sherman napisał(a):
> Greetings developers,
>
> I think we should consider a way to flag existing plugins that are not
> compatible with the new 2.0 api. This will improve user experience by
> preventing install of plugins that do not work with the u
hi all, I know that michael minn (cc) from mmqgis has flagged the 2.0
version as experimental and the 1.8 not. this somehow solves the proble
temporarily, but maxversion would be nice so different versions would
cohexist.
ciao
Marco Bernasocchi (mobile)
http://opengis.ch
On Apr 11, 2013 4:39 PM, "
Greetings developers,
I think we should consider a way to flag existing plugins that are not
compatible with the new 2.0 api. This will improve user experience by
preventing install of plugins that do not work with the users current QGIS
version.
Ideally all plugins would be converted to work wit
