On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Ming Liu <
address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
Sorry for using all capital letters in the subject line. Until now I know it is very inappropriate.
Kind regards,
Ming Liu