On 12/18/2017 10:03 AM, Julien Bect
18/12/2017 à 10:41, Alois Schloegl a écrit :
I definitely agree with Julien. Having a maintainer is very good.
And, the maintainers should have
09:04, Olaf Till wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17,
2017 at 09:44:17PM +0100, Alois Schloegl wrote:
FTR, after pointing out that the existing functions of this
for several years, the bioinfo package does not have
been adding three functions, and would like to maintain that
However, it is important to me, that this code can be used
as well, which means coding style that would work only in
Octave but not
in Matlab would be a problem, and I could not contribute.
I'd need to find or start another repository for maintaining
Therefore, I'm asking whether it would be ok with you, if I
role of a maintainer for the bioinfo package.
comply with Octave coding style, the following had been my
(unanswered) reply to this request at
I understand the need for running code both in Octave and in
Matlab. But if the code is to be maintained in collaboration,
be kept in a style which deviates from the standard style of
I understand, too, that this removes your motivation to
code within the bioinfo package. But still, if you are willing
contribute your new code as it is, GPL3+ licensed, this would
nice. You could do it at the patch tracker. Since the bioinfo
is currently comparatively simply structured, others (even me)
take the task of adapting your code to Octave style. And since
a bioinfo release is currently also comparatively simple, I
probably do it myself once I get a hint that it's suitable to
Could you accept this compromise? If yes, do you give me leave
adapt your current new code and to make a release?
If you insist on a coding style that is incompatible to Mat*ab,
need to setup another repository. My prefered solution would be
doing that, but maintaining the code within the current repo.
code is licensed with the GPL, the code is Free anyway, so it
be a big issue either way. There is "just" the additional effort
maintaining two code bases - something I'd prefer to avoid.
Still, I'm hoping that it's acceptable to use a compatible
within OF. Since the bioinfo package has no maintainer for
years, I thought I can contribute here.
My opinion : 1) more maintained OF packages is good ; 2) more
Matlab-compatible packages is good.
So I'm all in favour of Alois taking maintenance of this package
and making new contributions in a Matlab-compatible style,
reasonable freedom to make the choices that work best.