Re: Octave Forge -- Looking for a new leader

[Sebastian Schöps]

Olaf Till-2 wrote
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 01:40:05AM -0800, Sebastian Schöps wrote:
>> However, I still believe that we should give up on the idea of supported
>> and
>> unsupported packages and just maintain a list of known packages (hosted
>> on
>> 3rd party sites) that are compatible (i.e. have a Makefile like you
>> suggested recently). 

I'd say that official packages must be carefully reviewed such that there is
no malicious code and that the code is (mathematically) correctly working. I
understand that Carnë checked formal correctness but not contentwise (Carnë:
right?). I think it would be more honest to maintain a list and make
packages less part of the Octave project itself. This would also further
reduce the effort for reviewers and submitters. Many packages are doing
their development anyhow somewhere external. 

Of course, also for Octave there is no rigorius guarantee that all functions
give the correct answer, nonetheless the effort that peope invest to ensure
correctness is obviously much higher than for packages. This is rather
obvious since many packages require very specialized knowledge, e.g., I can
check rather easily if the pcg implementation is correct but I have no clue
how the algorithms of the interval package work and it would take an
incredible amout of my time to do a code review.



--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Forge-Looking-for-a-new-leader-tp4681121p4681202.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.