Re: Adding functions to octave base?

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 2 August 2010 11:40, fork <address@hidden> wrote:
> (Standard libraries should not be treated as second class citizens, but Octave
> Forge definitely is, unfortunately. And unmanaged file exchange systems aren't
> even citizens at all... I would love to see a slightly formalized standard
> library process, with RFQ's, for Octave.)

The only problem is that maintaining 'Forge functions is a chore.
Here's the discussion that was brought up the last time:

     
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Bug-tracker-for-Octave-Forge-td2249568.html#a2249568

Specifically,

On Jun 10, 2010; 03:25pm, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 10-Jun-2010, Soren Hauberg wrote:
> | My impression is that from a users point of view, the distinction
> | between Octave and Octave Forge is artificial. As such, I honestly
> | think the two projects should move closer together, i.e. share bug
> | tracker, web page and so forth.

> I'm willing to discuss it.

so perhaps it's time to revive that discussion.

I repeat that the only barrier here is that it's a chore. The webpages
need to be maintained and updated. I'd personally would be very happy
if we could move away from the antiquated SourceForge code hosting
into something nicer, maybe even move the svn 'Forge repos into hg.
Maybe I can do the latter myself, because that's easy. ;-)

By the way, have you noticed how we're currently having a bunch of
questions in octave-help related to 'Forge functions? Much of the
'Forge is in various states of disarray. I think it should at least be
polished to follow core Octave coding guidelines before it was given a
more official status.