On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:11, Giovanni Manghi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Nyall, > > >> > 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". > > > ummm... no, I really didn't meant that. What I was thinking was that SAGA > served us well (and will still serve) when we could not really rely on some > QGIS native tools (that lead to data corruption/wrong results and user > frustration). Also thinking about moving on to newer (bug free) releases I > didn't liked the idea to see tools disappear from Processing even if we have > very good native tools now. Anyway this is now an already obsolete > consideration, the solution you already implemented is good to me.
Great, I think it's a fair compromise. > >> >> I understand the background you're coming >> from > > > I genuinely do not understand what you mean :) What I meant was just that I acknowledge that we've had issues in the past, and understand that we do have work to do to "regain" trust in these native algorithms. Nyall > > cheers > > -- G -- > > _______________________________________________ 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
