Hey, On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ole Streicher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Michael, > > On 06.04.2016 14:36, Michael Hanke wrote: > >> Some Fields in neurodebian seem not to have 1:1 tasks in > >> debian-science: [...] > > Any discrepancy should be in favor of the non-neurodebian tasks, > > everything else is an ommision/bug in our side. > > >> The debian-science task "science-neuroscience-congnitive" has no > >> corresponding "field" in neurodebian, but seems to belong there. > > Again, a core debian target is preferred, hence this is a non-issue > > from my PoV. > > I must say that I didn't fully understand that. From your point of view, > Who actually shall feel responsible) for these tasks? NeuroDebian? Do > you say that these Debian tasks are the reference, and if NeuroDebian > does not match it is a bug in NeuroDebian but not in Debian? This is at > least how I did understand you; please correct me if I am wrong. > Yes, you got it right. Debian science is the reference. Anybody who cares should rightfully feel responsible. >> Wouldn't it make sense to move out the specific tasks > >> (science-electrophysiology. science-neuroscience-modelling, > >> science-neuroscience-datasets, science-psychophysics, and > >> science-neuroscience-congnitive) into the "neurodebian" package > >> (and remove it from debian-science)? > > > If somebody does that and it doesn't imply a future increase in > > perceived responsibility of "NeuroDebian" to maintain this former > > debian-science task -- I am all for it. > > The question here is (also) about responsibility. I guess you already > feel responsible for them, since you maintain, or "tag" them on your web > site already? Then it would IMO make perfect sense to extract them to a > separate package (resp. to the existing "neurodebian" package), > maintained by NeuroDebian. > > > I am not convinced that the "install all at once" approach is an > > actual selling point for a real user (NeuroDebian users that is). > > You already do this for your VMs, right? If you were not convinced, you > would not offer those ;-) > No we don't. Our VM is a very minimal image that allows people to quickly install things, but does nothing else. > I personally consider the task association as a "tag", no more. And > > I do mostly care about the second part of > > "science-neuroscience-cognitive" (neuroscience-cognitive), and much > > less about the prefix -- unless it is obscene ;-) > > So, let's omit the prefix completely :-) > > > But again, if this leads to the collateral damage that people are > > less likely to touch the task file because of this change of the > > umbrella from science (general) to neurodebian (less general), this > > would be a cost that I'd hate to pay. > > Browsing the logs, these tasks are mainly unchanged in the last years. > There were some changes 2 years ago by Andreas Tille and by Yaroslav, > but after then they are unchanged. Therefore, I would rate the risk > higher that these tasks become unmaintained. A move to the neurodebian > package would IMO a step forward. If you generate them from tags, that's > perfect, it would keep them synchronous to your web site. > No we don't generate the tasks from tags, the tags a generated from the tasks. Michael -- Michael Hanke http://mih.voxindeserto.de
