[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

From: Olaf Till
Subject: Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:29:30 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:33:44AM -0500, Doug Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Michael D Godfrey <
> address@hidden> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > I definitely agree with Julien. Having a maintainer is very good. And, the
> > maintainers should have
> > reasonable freedom to make the choices that work best.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> I agree with Michael who agrees with Julien.
> I still think we need a 3 tier setup
> 1) pkgs like control statistics etc that should have strict rules
> 2) pkgs like this that allows the maintainer more freedom.
> 3) pkgs that we only link to and the maintainer has full control over.

Currently we have a 2 tier setup.

1) As your 1), but seemingly you have different criteria to choose
   packages to include.

2) roughly as your 2), maintainer has full control except that certain
   rules have to be met. These rules don't include the coding style.

If the maintainer wants a non-Octave coding style, this is what group
(tier) 2) is for. But I'm not sure this helps in this case, since
'bioinfo' seems to aim for providing code compatiple with Matlabs
bioinformatics toolbox, and such code we should only host under
community control, in group 1).

I see no alternative to the code duplication mentioned by Alois. With
the current state of the bioinfo package it would probably be possible
for me to convert the new code myself into Octave style and make a

Do you question that it is desirable at all to adher to Octave coding
style (including texinfo documentation) for collaborative work?


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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]