On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 21:36, Giovanni Manghi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Nyall, > > >> >> Just raising the discussion about what we should do with SAGA >> Processing algorithms when the results generated by SAGA are known to >> be incorrect (i.e. there's a bug in SAGA itself). > > > add some kind of warning (for the tools we know can have issue), do not > remove, please. After all we never removed (nor deprecated) the native QGIS > tools when we knew (sometimes since long) that they were spitting very wrong > results...
See above for my new proposal. But I'm not convinced by this argument at all -- it's basically saying "let's accept bugs (and the user data corruption and frustration which result from them) because we once had other bugs so it's fair". I understand the background you're coming from, but we should all move on from the bugginess of 2.18 and just be happy that 3.x is a MUCH better processing experience all round, and continue to make it even better by fixing/hiding/removing tools which give incorrect results. Nyall > > just my 2 cents > > -- Giovanni -- > > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
