On Aug 19, 2012, at 7:28 AM, JuanPi wrote: > Hi, > > Carne rose the issue that the names single, bundle and forge weren't > meant to stick. I personally like them. But maybe is time to collect > some ideas > > In general lines the names stand for > > * Single: A upload of a single file. The only requirement are that it > is code usable in Octave and that the file is released under a GPL > compatible license. > * Bundle: A zip file with multiple files. May or may not have the > structure of a package. Even with package structure it is not > guaranteed that it will install. > * Forge: A zip file containing the structure of a package. A Forge > package must install correctly, must work and all GNU Octave coding > criteria applies. > > Any body against these names? If so, please give alternatives. > > Thanks > > -- > JuanPi Carbajal
I like the idea of using consistent names. Is there a reason to use "Single" instead of "Function", and "Forge" instead of "Package"? Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
