Re: [OctDev] moving Octave Forge mailing list to core's mailman server

[Carnë Draug]

On 25 November 2012 19:58, Daniel J Sebald <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 11:47 AM, Carnė Draug wrote:
>>
>> On 23 November 2012 19:17, Carnė Draug<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone
>>>
>>> I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
>>> (address@hidden) to the same server as as the ones
>>> from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
>>> related mailing lists:
>>>
>>> * address@hidden - same as now, discussion of development of
>>> Octave core
>>> * address@hidden - new mailing list for discussion of development of
>>> Octave Forge
>>> * address@hidden - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
>>> Octave (packages included)
>>
>>
>> I spoke with JWE about this and he suggested to keep only the
>> maintainers and help mailing lists, moving the development discussions
>> of Octave Forge to the Octave core maintainers mailing list. That
>> should avoid any confusion new users may have.
>>
>> I do not oppose to it, after all there's not that many Octave Forge
>> only development threads.
>
>
> Traffic fluctuates.  Sometimes one is more active than the other. Before
> combining these two, how about considering some alternate names?  I get both
> mailing lists at the moment.  I do like the separation for the reason you
> explained very well a month or two ago, i.e., folks tend to gravitate toward
> one list because it is too much to pay attention to everything.
>
> To me, "forge" is simply too generic.  That the term "forge" may be common
> for other projects doesn't change that fact.  We feel these two are good:

Forge is not too generic since the project name is Octave Forge.
Therefore, no doubt should come out of an address such as
address@hidden

> As the third category, how about:
>
> address@hidden
> address@hidden
> address@hidden
>
> [snip]
>
> applications: For advanced features such as packages and interface to other
> software.

You seem to be confused about what Octave Forge is. We are not the go
to place for all applications, packages and advanced Octave stuff.
There's plenty of applications and packages for Octave that are not
part of Forge. Calling it advanced is insulting to core as if one
could not do advanced stuff with core only.

> Now, if we want to combine bug reports for applications and maintainers in
> the same tracker,

Tracker? We are only talking about mailing list. Bug reports are to be
discussed on the bug trackers so they should never appear on the
mailing list. I'll make sure to direct any discussion of Octave Forge
bugs to the Octave Forge bug tracker.

That said, the only type of threads from the current Octave Forge
mailing list that would now appear in maintainers would be license
stuff, adding of new packages, google summer of code, etc... As an
example, for the month of November, these are the threads:

- these ones were in both maintainers and forge mailing list and don't
really count (this seems to becoming more common over time) :

* this very own thread
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octconf-2013-td4646964.html -
discussion of OctConf2013
* 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/low-level-I-O-GPIB-USBTMC-VXI11-td4646993.html
- about various instrument control packages that are not part of
OctaveForge and whether they could be merged (descended into
discussion of legal stuff and was eventually moved to the maintainers
mailing list)
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/complex-error-function-td4645714.html
- someone shared code for Octave and it was discussed where it should
go

- 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/removing-java-package-from-SVN-tree-td4647021.html
- this ones was about the removal of the java package from Octave
Forge since it was moved to Octave core. It was not mentioned in the
maintainers mailing list but I wouldn't not have been out of place
together with an announcement of its move

- the following 4 e-mails were all on the same subject. We decide to
restrict the licenses in forge and sent a couple of e-mails to the
copyright owners asking to relicense their code

* 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/removal-of-non-standard-licenses-in-Octave-Forge-td4645841.html
* 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Re-License-Andy-Adler-s-code-in-Octave-Forge-td4646143.html
* 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/License-of-medfilt1-in-Octave-Forge-td4646144.html
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/FreeBSD-vs-simplified-BSD-td4645843.html

Carnë