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

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 11/25/2012 01:48 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that is my point.  Developers talk of Octave Forge as though it is 
something other than packages, something more encompassing, etc.  I look 
at the website

http://octave.sourceforge.net/

and I see at the very top, first thing:

"Octave-Forge - Extra packages for GNU Octave"

Am I mistaken for assuming then that Octave Forge is primarily packages? 
 What is this "forge" concept that I'm not understanding?

I get a lot of email with OctDev tagged onto it (the name OctDev itself 
leads to confusion given it is associated with Octave Forge...and I 
understand this is why we are discussing name changes) and discussions 
seem to be primarily about packages and Java and applications.  That 
seems like advanced stuff.


> We are not the go
> to place for all applications, packages and advanced Octave stuff.

OK, that's not what it is.  What is it?


> There's plenty of applications and packages for Octave that are not
> part of Forge.

That doesn't mean Octave Forge isn't primarily about packages and 
applications.  What is Forge?


>  Calling it advanced is insulting to core as if one
> could not do advanced stuff with core only.

No it isn't.  Packages encompass advanced fields of study.  Calling 
something advanced doesn't imply something else isn't advanced in its 
own way.



> > 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.

Yes and no.  I often see discussions of bugs.  Some bugs are 
straightforward and remain on the tracker.  Some are either vague and 
difficult to solve and warrant help from others, hence discussion list. 
 Some bugs expose an underlying weakness in design and warrant 
discussion about design modifications.


> 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:

Yes, those all make sense.  There is some overlap, which is fine. 
Occassional duplication hasn't struck me as a concern as of yet. 
Perhaps others feel otherwise.

I guess the question is whether Octave Forge should be rolled into an 
all inclusive Octave.  Presumably that's the way it will be someday, 
provided things stabilize.  Is that day approaching?  Sort of, but not 
quite yet, I would argue.

2012 has certainly been one of the most active years of development, and 
I think the reorganization of the core code has gone a long way toward a 
more developer-friendly project.  However, the GUI will be a wave of 
issues in a multi-platform supported project.  If Forge-related posts 
get mixed with core-related posts with an increase due to GUI issues, 
could it be too much?

I propose a holding pattern with discussions about consolidation and 
rolling out the GUI as part of, or coincident with, OctConf 2013?

Dan



> - 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