[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal for a team of admins
From: |
c. |
Subject: |
Re: Proposal for a team of admins |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:12:33 +0100 |
On 11 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Julien Bect <address@hidden> wrote:
> * When the EHP [1] is created, we have of course to create its OF-repo by
> cloning its main repo. But for other packages, we also have to create an
> OF-repo [-> no additional work].
Why "of course"? Externally hosted packages could just be externally hosted,
developed and deployed.
How these packages are developed and distributed should in no way interfere
with the working of OF.
So if the OF leader(s) are not happy with how the code of a package looks like
they should not necessarily
clone it as-is and host it on OF.
I think that looking at other people's code and trying to convince them to
adapt it to what he beleived to be
the minimum acceptable quality standards of OF is a large part of what Carnë
refers to "community management"
in his latest post and is very tirying and time consuming.
Such code does actually not even necessarily be proper "packages", for example
for a function consisting of
a single file the complete package structure is definitely overkill.
Contributions of tis kind may still be useful per-se (e.g. I found the now gone
physical_constants package
to be very useful ...) but especially are a great way to get new contributors
involved with Octave development
without being confronted with a steep entry barrier.
I do understand OF leader(s) may not wish to have their own "reputation" or
that of OF linked to the "quality"
of such software, but I still think we would benefit from maintaining a list of
such contributions.
So if you like this list could be maintained elsewhere, e.g. on a dedicated
page in the wiki taht would be linked
to from https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/ just like Octave Forge.
c.
Re: Proposal for a team of admins, Julien Bect, 2017/01/11
Re: Proposal for a team of admins, Olaf Till, 2017/01/15