[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: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:16:24 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Alois Schloegl wrote:
> On 2017-12-29 11:22, Olaf Till wrote:
> > Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
> > turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package
> do I need to wait until this vote has happened ?

Yes, if you please.

> If yes, when will this
> vote take place?

As soon as you have answered my question in a sense that makes the
vote useful.

My plan was to start the day before yesterday. Since my spare time
will be over at 2nd January, it would be nice if I could start the
vote today or tomorrow.

> > But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
> > 'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
> > so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
> > from Octave Forge.
> I'm not sure I understand; what do you mean by "[taking a] .. package
> off .. Octave Forge" ? And even a "community" package is usually
> maintained on Octave Forge - why would you take it off ? Do I need to
> worry about this - or is this about some other unrelated issue ?

We want to publish a package at Octave Forge either in the 'community'
or in the 'external' group, not in both at the same time (even if the
published versions are different). As long as you maintain 'bioinfo'
in the 'external' group, there should be no corresponding package in
the 'community' group (actually, for this specific package, having no
maintainer for it in the 'community' group would be the sole reason to
give it away into the 'external' group). However, once someone else
should be willing and able to maintain 'bioinfo' in the 'community'
group, and we see a need for it, we would let him be the maintainer
(instead of you...) and assign the package to the 'community' group
(this would mean that Matlab compatibiliy is not adhered to
anymore). The reason is that the package corresponds to a Matlab
toolbox, so we want a certain degree of community control over it, if
the resources are available.

The above is no 'contract'. I only want you to see all implications
before we ask the maintainers to spend time to vote.

Since your previous answer seemed ambiguous to me, please tell us
again if you understand the above and still want a vote.


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]