Re: OF package maintainers please vote: Scope of OF?

[PhilipNienhuis]

Julien Bect-2 wrote
> Le 10/01/2017 à 23:31, PhilipNienhuis a écrit :
>> I have a very slight (55 % vs 45 %) preference for 2.2, because of the 
>> extra
>> work involved with 2.1. However if that extra work can be shifted 
>> towards the maintainers of those independent packages I think 2.1 my 
>> preference will change into 2.1.
> 
> Hi Philip,
> 
> Can you explain what this extra work is, exactly ?
> 
> @++
> Julien


Julien Bect-2 wrote
> Le 10/01/2017 à 23:31, PhilipNienhuis a écrit :
>> I have a very slight (55 % vs 45 %) preference for 2.2, because of the 
>> extra
>> work involved with 2.1. However if that extra work can be shifted 
>> towards the maintainers of those independent packages I think 2.1 my 
>> preference will change into 2.1.
> 
> Hi Philip,
> 
> Can you explain what this extra work is, exactly ?

Not exactly, but I'm thinking of e.g., maintaining the infrastructure on
octave.sf.net and in Octave itself (pkg -forge) needed for those external
packages, keeping repos sync'ed, that sort of things. 
All of it depending on how exactly "external packages" can be integrated
with Octave-Forge and core Octave.

Sorry for slightly hijacking this thread, but I I'd be in favor of having
"officially" supported stable package releases on OF vetted by some OF team
and all; but on each individual package page next to the download buttons
for stable and previous releases an option (another download button?) for
downloading unstable (bleeding edge) incl. mere bug fix package releases.
The latter to be uploaded directly by package maintainers themselves w/o
much action by the OF team. That DL button of course decorated by the
probably unavoidably required warnings.

Philip




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/OF-package-maintainers-please-vote-Scope-of-OF-tp4681358p4681380.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.