On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Carnë Draug <carandraug+...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I do agree with Carnë idea. In particular with the refinement proposed by jwe were everything gets merged to the current mailing lists. I do not really understand, the complication observed or proposed by Daniel (no ofense!). I think the issue is quite simple, so a simple solution should be enough. Cheers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
