This is probably entirely a matter of opinion, so here's my own.. 

There are many reason's to NOT register a package, but "not a fundamental 
numerical ... component" is not one of them. I think it is perfectly fine 
to register a domain specific library. So if that is your only concern, 
please do register it. 

Technically, at the moment, you will need to register a package (and tag a 
version) if any other package depends on it. However this restriction is 
likely to go away in the future. 

A general rule I follow is that you should register a package if you think 
anyone other than people you email directly can/should use your package. 
This means two things. One, it allows people to find your package, makes is 
discoverable. Two, it means that your package must have reasonable 
documentation/tests for third parties to use it successfully. 

Regards
-
Avik

On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 09:11:38 UTC+1, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>
> For a long time I had a question which seems closely related to this 
> thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-users/621ta_jPdkA, 
>  so it seems as good a time as any to bring it up :
>
> I think the Julia package management is really wonderful, but what this 
> question relates to is what types of packages should be actually be 
> registered, and which should be just accessible using `clone`. More 
> specifically:
>
> I am in the process of developing a library of Julia codes for my own 
> group's research for now (molecular simulation), but with mid to long-term 
> aim to make this a library that can be used for "real scientific work" by 
> end-users (primarily materials modelling).  But it is not a fundamental 
> numerical simulation component like optimisation, linear algebra, ODE 
> solvers, visualisation, ApproxFun.jl, etc, on which libraries like my own 
> might depend. 
>
> My own point of view was so far that such a library such not be a 
> registered Julia package, to avoid the package repository getting unwieldy. 
> But I would be interested in hearing other opinions.
>
> Thanks,
>    Christoph
>
>

Reply via email to