[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

From: Alois Schloegl
Subject: Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 23:28:06 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2

The answer took me some time, for two reasons: (1) I was speechless how
Olaf was framing the situation, and (2) I had the flu und had to stay in

I did not ask for a vote, it was Olaf who saw a need for a vote.
Concerning his question, I'm not sure if I understand it; or what this
vote will be about; or what the difference would be if the outcome of
the vote is yes or no. So I can not answer his question(s).

This is an utterly frustrating and discouraging situation for me. In
order to overcome that situation, I've applied the motto of 34C3 "tuwat"
[1], I've decided to fork bioinfo. fast-export was used to convert the
repository in order to maintain its history. The new repository is
available at


This repo will be maintained under a coding style that is compatible to
Octave AND Matlab. Both, Octave and Matlab, are target platforms. If the
code does not run correctly on one or both of the target platforms, it
is considered a bug. Contributions are welcome.


[1] https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9293-abschluss

On 2017-12-31 12:16, Olaf Till wrote:
> 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.
> Olaf

reply via email to

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