Re: Integrating Quint into the Octave sources

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 18 April 2011 12:59, John Swensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> I have never been a fan of making an Octave IDE part of the base
> Octave distribution (for any platform).  Since the way it is written
> right now, the IDE only need to link against Octave libraries I
> think it should always be a different package with the core Octave
> binary as a dependency.

I think we've had a long history of this approach which fails for
sociological reasons. Do we really need another QtOctave, another
XOctave, another GUIOctave, another Octave Workshop? Compare with the
case of octplot, plplot, Octaviz, yapso, and whatever else and the
much more evident success of the fltk backend.

If it's all in one place, if we're all looking at the same code, if
every user who doesn't give configure a --without-gui option is
building the software, it is much more likely to become something that
we can all enjoy.

2011/4/18 Michael D Godfrey <address@hidden>:
> On 04/18/2011 08:54 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
>> As I see it, this is no reason to wait. It should go into the
>> development branch, which makes no promises of functionality. It's
>> precisely what that branch is for, for breaking things. We have a

> This is not my view of the purpose of the development branch.

Then what's the collaborative development location for having software
that is known to be possibly broken? We need such a location. If we
all kept our software locked up without sharing it centrally until it
was perfect for a release, no collaboration would ever take place.

- Jordi G. H.