Re: [OctDev] moving Octave Forge mailing list to core's mailman server

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 11/25/2012 04:10 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald<address@hidden>  wrote:
> > On 11/25/2012 01:48 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> > > You seem to be confused about what Octave Forge is.
[snip]
> > I get a lot of email with OctDev tagged onto it (the name OctDev itself
> > leads to confusion given it is associated with Octave Forge...and I
> > understand this is why we are discussing name changes) and discussions seem
> > to be primarily about packages and Java and applications.  That seems like
> > advanced stuff.
>
> At the moment, the decision whether a thread belongs to the help or
> octave-dev mailing list is whether the reply is "use package X from
> octave forge". I'll argue that most Octave users already use at least
> one of the Octave Forge packages. And I'll also argue that no one in
> Octave Forge uses all the Octave Forge packages. So if the question is
> how to use a function from an Octave Forge package, users on the help
> mailing list already are the right people to answer it. Keeping them
> separated makes no sense anymore.

So there will be changes to the Octave webpage descriptions that 
consequently (or at least intend to) direct the bulk of OctDev to the 
"address@hidden" mailing list?

Thoughts from others who have followed the "help" email list?


> > > There's plenty of applications and packages for Octave that are not
> > > part of Forge.
> >
> > That doesn't mean Octave Forge isn't primarily about packages and
> > applications.
>
> What is this applications you keep talking about? There's only packages.

You are thinking of applications as in hunk of software, I suspect.  I'm 
speaking in terms of applied science, e.g., signal processing, civil 
engineering, image processing, statistics.  However, looking at the list 
of packages just now, it does seem there are quite a few more geared 
toward software, e.g., tcl-octave.  Anyway, "address@hidden" was an 
alternative I tossed out there.


> > What is Forge?
>
> Forget that the word Forge means anything. It's just the name of the
> project. Maybe historically means it was hosted in SourceForge. Or
> maybe because the original idea behind the project was to develop and
> test new things which would be moved into core as they mature.

Both.


> > Yes and no.  I often see discussions of bugs.  Some bugs are straightforward
> > and remain on the tracker.  Some are either vague and difficult to solve and
> > warrant help from others, hence discussion list.  Some bugs expose an
> > underlying weakness in design and warrant discussion about design
> > modifications.
>
> That may be true in core. I do not remember that ever happening in
> forge. Considering the way development is done in Forge, I wouldn't
> consider this to ever be a problem.

"install package" would be the conceptual development there--now stable.


> > > That said, the only type of threads from the current Octave Forge
> > > mailing list that would now appear in maintainers would be license
> > > stuff, adding of new packages, google summer of code, etc... As an
> > > example, for the month of November, these are the threads:
> >
> > Yes, those all make sense.  There is some overlap, which is fine.
> > Occasional duplication hasn't struck me as a concern as of yet. Perhaps
> > others feel otherwise.
>
> It's not just occasional. Almost all of the forge threads related to
> development are also mentioned in the maintainers mailing list.
>
> > I guess the question is whether Octave Forge should be rolled into an all
> > inclusive Octave.  Presumably that's the way it will be someday, provided
> > things stabilize.  Is that day approaching?  Sort of, but not quite yet, I
> > would argue.
>
> Yes it is. Not one big change though, but slowly slowly seems to be
> the direction it's taking. It doesn't make sense to make that question
> yet, maybe it never will. But in the mean time, when things start to
> overlap, such as in the case of the mailing lists, it makes sense to
> merge them. We are not discussing more than just that, mailing lists.

Getting rid of an active mailing list is more than a name change.  That 
traffic has to go somewhere.  I doubt the package concept is going away.

Dan