On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <
address@hidden> wrote:
>
> cdOn 19 May 2013 09:08, Vytautas Jancauskas <
address@hidden> wrote:
> > If you mean how to contribute to the octave code base then the
> > standard OSS procedure these days
>
> We don't endorse "open source software" in Octave. We endorse free
> software:
>
>
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>
> > is to fork the repository, make the changes and create a pull
> > request I guess.
>
> I find it a tad strange that github has popularised the term "fork"
> for "clone". The word "fork" for repos has connotations of
> irreconcilable differences between two development teams (e.g. Emacs
> and XEmacs; MySQL and MariaDB). We would prefer that you don't fork
> Octave in this sense. Hopefully you don't have irreconcilable
> differences with Octave yet. You're welcome to clone our repo,
> however:
>
>
http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/>
> While pull requests for our repo are fine, you can also just send us
> patches created by "hg export" or however else you can make them. We
> prefer patches or pull requests, but it's more important for us that
> you send us patches in any way you can. It's just easier for us to
> apply hg patches or pull requests, so it's more likely for your
> patches to get applied more quickly this way.
>
>
http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/how-to-write-a-patch-for-octave/
>
http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/Contributing-Guidelines.html>
> - Jordi G. H.
Hi,
May I ask a personal question? As I can see that many contributors are working hardly for Octave, so what are the motivations for doing so? Sorry for bothering you.
Kind regards,
Ming Liu