Re: Octave Forge -- Looking for a new leader

[Olaf Till]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 05:31:11PM +0100, c. wrote:
> 
> On 8 Jan 2017, at 16:59, Julien Bect <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > My opinion about the second option (transforming OF into a collection of 
> > externally hosted repos and/or tarballs) : this would be very drastic 
> > change of philosophy,
> 
> I think this is one moment where we have the opportunity to make "drastic" 
> changes ...
> 
> > and...
> > 
> > 1) It only partially solves the problem, since the release of a package 
> > means updating the web site both to let it point at the new release
> 
> not really, see below
> 
> > (unless we define a standard way to find it on the external site),
> 
> yes this is one possibilty, but there are other options as well e.g. we could 
> maintain the list in a svn/mercurial/git repository
> 
> > and to update the documentation (unless we also stop distributing a 
> > documentation of the OF web site ?).
> 
> my opinion is that package maintainers should also maintain their own 
> documentation website.
> octave.org can just have a link to the documentation.
> 
> > 2) And again, I believe that it requires as above a comprehensive set of 
> > tools for automated checking of formal correctness (unless we accept the 
> > idea that OF is a collection of links without any garantee of quality ?).
> 
> Is this really that bad an option? 
> In what way do we "garantee" quality right now?
> And how exactly do we define "quality" now?

I have read the arguments for giving up a central web site.

I don't want to repeat the arguments, given in this thread, for
maintaining the notion of supported packages, but I value them high,
and they make a central web site with some supervision the natural
choice. ('Supported packages', as I see it, are identical with those
which are allowed to be hosted at the central web site.)

In addition to the above, I think the spirit of collaboration between
package maintainers is best kept with keeping the practice of general
access to all packages for each maintainer; this, too, is best
achieved with a central web site for the package repositories.

As for giving the maintainers the right to publish a release, I think
this in itself would be useful and probably not harmful, but if this
right is necessarily connected with access to the whole web site, I
would not suggest we should allow it.

To enable us to suggest something meaningful, could someone explain
how the access rights are organized for us at Sourceforge? (Which
levels?)

@Oliver: Your wiki page seems to be a good start, but I would say it
should be explicitly marked as a draft version which is currently
discussed ...

Olaf

-- 
public key id EAFE0591, e.g. on x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature