tor, 21 07 2011 kl. 23:58 -0500, skrev Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso: > 2011/7/21 Carnë Draug <[email protected]>: > > some e-mails to the mailing list reporting bugs (and some with > > patches or suggested changes), seem to never have a response. I > > myself have a couple of such e-mails, marked as unread, for when I > > have the time to do something about them. I feel that these bugs > > will just be lost, which is even worse for the ones that come with a > > patch attached.
Yeah, I have ~70 mails on my TODO pile (and the number seems to be growing) :-( > > I believe that this could be better managed if users reported them > > on the octave-forge bug tracker, which we do have at > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=2888&atid=102888 > > Actually, I think the right fix is to merge with the Octave bug > tracker in Savannah. We already get plenty of bug reports there for > Octave-Forge packages, and we keep telling them, "that's not us, but a > separate project!" which seems very wrong to me. We're the same people > for the most part, we all care about core Octave and we all care at > least about a few Octave-Forge packages, and we all have a comparable > set of skills to work on Octave-Forge or Octave itself. > > We can keep using svn with Savannah, but I'd like to take the > opportunity to do some cleanup and move Octave-Forge to hg: break it > up into one hg repo per package plus another repo that contains them > all as hg subrepos, plus any project metadata that may be necessary. > As for bugtracking, all we would have to do is set a special > Octave-Forge category in the Savannah (actually, this category already > exists in Octave's bug tracker, but it's used to mean "not our > problem!"). There are two separate issues here: 1. Where to report bugs, and 2. where to develop code. Regarding the first issue, I agree with Jordi that it would be better if we could use the Octave bug tracker as that would give users a single point of entry. The current situation is a mess where users report Octave-Forge problems to the Octave tracker and Octave problems to the Octave-Forge mailing list. I guess we should talk to JWE about the possibility of using the Octave tracker. Regarding the issue of where code is developed (SVN vs Hg vs ???) then I think we should deal with this independently of the bug tracker issue. That being said, my impression is that a lot of development happens outside the SVN repository and when a new release is made a lot of code gets checked into SVN. So I don't think our current setup is working. I must confess that I am not sure that the idea of using a single repository for *all* packages actually works. If I want to work on package X then I guess it is annoying that I have to check out the entire Octave-Forge repository. The single repository seems to serve no purpose now that we moved away from the monolithic releases. So perhaps we should create a whole bunch of repositories? Regarding the type of the repository then I don't really care; for the simple stuff I do, SVN, Hg, Git, ..., are all the same. > The only problem is a few packages have non-free licenses, but they're > rarely used or maintained, and I think all the non-free packages can > be dropped. I think it is fine to drop the non-free packages; I'm not even sure they compile any more, and I doubt they see much use anyway. Søren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Tips for Better Web Security Learn 10 ways to better secure your business today. Topics covered include: Web security, SSL, hacker attacks & Denial of Service (DoS), private keys, security Microsoft Exchange, secure Instant Messaging, and much more. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426210/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
