On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think with such a change we'd need to reconsider the policy of
> Octave Forge: Currently, the 'community' group of packages is meant
> for coordinating development with Octave, at least potentially. The
> proposed change would mean that Octave developers prefer a
> coordination in a different way.
I am with Olaf in this. Indeed it seems to me that at some point we
wanted to bring OF closer to core to then "move functions to core" (as
in the scripts folder).
But now we actually want to have a caste system of packages where we
have core and OF packages.
Also I tend to agree in the comment regarding developers attention.
Can't the core developers pay attention to OF?
We could have 'core','community' and 'external' packages as packages
categories in OF, in which 'core' has all the core development
standards (including a named branch "stable" used as in core). As an
extra benefit, delineating the criteria to classify as a 'core'
package in OF might go in the same direction as providing better
documentation for developers.
I agree with JPi on the three categories.
This latter solution still runs into the "naming" problem, but at
least this will be handle din one place, namely OF.
JPi
I also like the idea of packaging these "core" packages with the released version
of octave, but still have the ability to use forge and update to newer pkgs
as they come available.
So with this setup anyone on windows, Linux or Apple would always get the "core" packages when they install octave.
But can upgrade from forge when they want to.