Re: OF package maintainers please vote: Scope of OF?

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM, PhilipNienhuis <address@hidden> wrote:
> Julien Bect-2 wrote
>> Le 10/01/2017 à 23:31, PhilipNienhuis a écrit :
>>> I have a very slight (55 % vs 45 %) preference for 2.2, because of the
>>> extra
>>> work involved with 2.1. However if that extra work can be shifted
>>> towards the maintainers of those independent packages I think 2.1 my
>>> preference will change into 2.1.
>>
>> Hi Philip,
>>
>> Can you explain what this extra work is, exactly ?
>>
>> @++
>> Julien
>
>
> Julien Bect-2 wrote
>> Le 10/01/2017 à 23:31, PhilipNienhuis a écrit :
>>> I have a very slight (55 % vs 45 %) preference for 2.2, because of the
>>> extra
>>> work involved with 2.1. However if that extra work can be shifted
>>> towards the maintainers of those independent packages I think 2.1 my
>>> preference will change into 2.1.
>>
>> Hi Philip,
>>
>> Can you explain what this extra work is, exactly ?
>
> Not exactly, but I'm thinking of e.g., maintaining the infrastructure on
> octave.sf.net and in Octave itself (pkg -forge) needed for those external
> packages, keeping repos sync'ed, that sort of things.
> All of it depending on how exactly "external packages" can be integrated
> with Octave-Forge and core Octave.
>
> Sorry for slightly hijacking this thread, but I I'd be in favor of having
> "officially" supported stable package releases on OF vetted by some OF team
> and all; but on each individual package page next to the download buttons
> for stable and previous releases an option (another download button?) for
> downloading unstable (bleeding edge) incl. mere bug fix package releases.
> The latter to be uploaded directly by package maintainers themselves w/o
> much action by the OF team. That DL button of course decorated by the
> probably unavoidably required warnings.
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/OF-package-maintainers-please-vote-Scope-of-OF-tp4681358p4681380.html
> Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Hi,

I maintain geometry and help with many other packages when the
possibility appears. I have several "external packages" so I really
support option 2.1

Cheers