On 26 November 2012 01:01, Daniel J Sebald <daniel.seb...@ieee.org> wrote: > On 11/25/2012 04:10 PM, Carnė Draug wrote: >> >> On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald<daniel.seb...@ieee.org> wrote: >> At the moment, the decision whether a thread belongs to the help or >> octave-dev mailing list is whether the reply is "use package X from >> octave forge". I'll argue that most Octave users already use at least >> one of the Octave Forge packages. And I'll also argue that no one in >> Octave Forge uses all the Octave Forge packages. So if the question is >> how to use a function from an Octave Forge package, users on the help >> mailing list already are the right people to answer it. Keeping them >> separated makes no sense anymore. > > So there will be changes to the Octave webpage descriptions that > consequently (or at least intend to) direct the bulk of OctDev to the > "h...@octave.org" mailing list?
Yes. That's why this is being discussed in the maintainers mailing list. >>>> There's plenty of applications and packages for Octave that are not >>>> part of Forge. >>> >>> >>> That doesn't mean Octave Forge isn't primarily about packages and >>> applications. >> >> >> What is this applications you keep talking about? There's only packages. > > You are thinking of applications as in hunk of software, I suspect. I'm > speaking in terms of applied science, e.g., signal processing, civil > engineering, image processing, statistics. Damn you homophones. Causing trouble since monkeys learned to talk. >>> Yes and no. I often see discussions of bugs. Some bugs are >>> straightforward >>> and remain on the tracker. Some are either vague and difficult to solve >>> and >>> warrant help from others, hence discussion list. Some bugs expose an >>> underlying weakness in design and warrant discussion about design >>> modifications. >> >> >> That may be true in core. I do not remember that ever happening in >> forge. Considering the way development is done in Forge, I wouldn't >> consider this to ever be a problem. > > > "install package" would be the conceptual development there--now stable. "install package" would already belong to the maintainers mailing list since it's handled by pkg, itself part of core. It is, however, a very good example of a maintainers discussion that developers of forge should be involved. >> Yes it is. Not one big change though, but slowly slowly seems to be >> the direction it's taking. It doesn't make sense to make that question >> yet, maybe it never will. But in the mean time, when things start to >> overlap, such as in the case of the mailing lists, it makes sense to >> merge them. We are not discussing more than just that, mailing lists. > > > Getting rid of an active mailing list is more than a name change. That > traffic has to go somewhere. I doubt the package concept is going away. We are merging 3 mailing lists, whose subjects have been overlapping too much and too often, into 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
