Re: maintaining some packages at core Octave (was: Re: OctConf 2018, second day -- a lot of discussions and some work done)

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

> Would you have you preferences for an alternative, regarding what
> should be done with existing 'extra' functions in a 'core' package?
> Just deleting them?  Putting them into an extra package (you seem to
> have suggested this in a previous mail)? Not distinguishing them from
> 'core' functions?

Yes, I would always try to erase distinction between core and OF
functions, simpler for us, simpler for the users who come into Octave
(what are core, what are extra, what are community what are
external?).
there is a difference between one's workflow and what we expose as the
workflow of the community. Let ma give an example, maybe not the most
relevant but I hope to make myself clear: I do not see the point of
exposing Makefiles that detect whether one is using git or mercurial.
Once the Makefile is there it is either one of them. If it is not,
then it is up the the person doing the "nicety" to solve his workflow
and not contaminate the workflow of the whole.
Another example is the unneeded use of bash commands when octave's
commands can do the same thing. Devs are definitely expected to know
octave's language, they should not be expected to be proficient at
bash, sed, perl or any other language. Use externals only when is
necessary.

Given the new layer of complexity added, I would say forget about this
change, put back those functions back into core.
I was very happy when Oliver, Mike and Carne managed to come to the
kind of makefiles we see in signal, geometry and interval (this one is
going crazy, though). They improved the workflow a lot with minimum
cost in learning new tools (a few Makefile commands, which they
commented clearly). That kind of makefile was actually encouraging my
students to make their own package. The template makefile offered
currently at OF and Makefiles like the current one in statistics
already managed to scare two of my students (environmental engineers),
and force me to intervene to put their motivation back in track
(basically I told them: forget about this, just look into signal).

The issue here, of course, is that nobody can be wrong or right. We,
as the Of community, never managed to set the mission of the site. I
was always convinced this was the place were we capture users, and
potentially motivate them to be maintainers (core or OF, I do not
care). Under my perspective, and the role I see to OF, I see most of
current improvements counter-productive.
I said improvements because I have no doubt they were done with that
intention, the issue here is the lack of alignment among us.

I hope I answered something!