On 10 Jul 2016 3:52 PM, "Matthias Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for raising this Nyall > > On 10/07/16 00:18, Nyall Dawson wrote: > > I'd like to raise an idea for discussion: should we *require* that all > > 3.0 API breaks are introduced via a PR? > I am in favor of this. > > > Advantages I'd see are: > > 1. wider discussion about the nicest way the new/modified API could work > > 2. allows for discussion about whether the documentation for the API > > break is sufficient for plugin developers > > > > Disadvantages: > > 1. More work > > 2. Given that there's going to be a lot of breaks, it could slow > > development down. > > I am in favor of this. > > Sometimes it's nice to change some things and get other opinions. > Leaving it open for a few days should be enough to give it visibility. > > Speaking of which... How are we documenting API changes? > Doxygen, website or documentation?
I thought we decided on doxygen? https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/3290 Shows how'd I'd go about it Nyall > > Matthias > > > > > I'm a +0 on this. > > > > Nyall > > _______________________________________________ > > Qgis-developer mailing list > > [email protected] > > List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
