[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...
From: |
Alois Schloegl |
Subject: |
Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ... |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:35:47 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 |
On 2017-12-18 18:29, Olaf Till wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:33:44AM -0500, Doug Stewart wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Michael D Godfrey <
>> address@hidden> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I definitely agree with Julien. Having a maintainer is very good. And, the
>>> maintainers should have
>>> reasonable freedom to make the choices that work best.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Michael who agrees with Julien.
>>
>> I still think we need a 3 tier setup
>> 1) pkgs like control statistics etc that should have strict rules
>> 2) pkgs like this that allows the maintainer more freedom.
>> 3) pkgs that we only link to and the maintainer has full control over.
>
> Currently we have a 2 tier setup.
>
> 1) As your 1), but seemingly you have different criteria to choose
> packages to include.
>
> 2) roughly as your 2), maintainer has full control except that certain
> rules have to be met. These rules don't include the coding style.
>
> If the maintainer wants a non-Octave coding style, this is what group
> (tier) 2) is for. But I'm not sure this helps in this case, since
> 'bioinfo' seems to aim for providing code compatiple with Matlabs
> bioinformatics toolbox, and such code we should only host under
> community control, in group 1).
>
> I see no alternative to the code duplication mentioned by Alois. With
> the current state of the bioinfo package it would probably be possible
> for me to convert the new code myself into Octave style and make a
> release.
>
> Do you question that it is desirable at all to adher to Octave coding
> style (including texinfo documentation) for collaborative work?
>
> Olaf
>
Olaf,
Yes, I question a coding style that *forces* developers to write code
that is incompatible to Mat*ab. What good does it do ?
Octave is designed to be compatible to Matlab. Why should not the same
be true for its packages a.k.a. toolboxes ?
Alois
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., (continued)
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Alois Schloegl, 2017/12/19
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Alois Schloegl, 2017/12/26
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Julien Bect, 2017/12/26
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Alois Schloegl, 2017/12/26
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Olaf Till, 2017/12/27
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Alois Schloegl, 2017/12/28
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Olaf Till, 2017/12/29
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Alois Schloegl, 2017/12/30
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Olaf Till, 2017/12/31
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ..., Steph Bredenhann, 2017/12/31
- Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...,
Alois Schloegl <=