Re: Adding functions to octave base?

[fork]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh <at> gmail.com> writes:

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

So why don't we bring everything into the main hg tree? (Including emacs mode
files -- my latest headache...?)

> By the way, have you noticed how we're currently having a bunch of
> questions in octave-help related to 'Forge functions? 

Of course we are ...

> 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.

I think it has served its purpose, but should be obsolesced.  Some of the
packages are coherent and should be moved wholesale (and their maintainers
should patch the main tree), some are full of important functions but should be
cannibalized, and some should be forgotten altogether.

Not sure how to go about this, as it is a big project.  However, a huge part of
the appeal of Python is its batteries included philosophy, and the Octave
project could do that too.