Re: [OctDev] moving Octave Forge mailing list to core's mailman server

[Carnë D. <car...@gm...>]

On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald <dan...@ie...> wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 01:48 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
>> You seem to be confused about what Octave Forge is.
>
> Yes, that is my point.  Developers talk of Octave Forge as though it is
> something other than packages, something more encompassing, etc.  I look at
> the website
>
> http://octave.sourceforge.net/
>
> and I see at the very top, first thing:
>
> "Octave-Forge - Extra packages for GNU Octave"
>
> Am I mistaken for assuming then that Octave Forge is primarily packages?
> What is this "forge" concept that I'm not understanding?

It's primarily for packages but only the ones that belong to Octave Forge.

> I get a lot of email with OctDev tagged onto it (the name OctDev itself
> leads to confusion given it is associated with Octave Forge...and I
> understand this is why we are discussing name changes) and discussions seem
> to be primarily about packages and Java and applications.  That seems like
> advanced stuff.

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.

About java, its package has been merged into core. About applications,
Octave Forge has no applications so such discussions should already be
directed to the help mailing list.

>> We are not the go
>> to place for all applications, packages and advanced Octave stuff.
>
> OK, that's not what it is.  What is it?

It's a place for development of Octave packages. But the keyword there
is *all*. Specially with Agora, we should redirect some stuff there. I
already have a couple of packages that I have been developing and do
not want to be part of Octave Forge. I will place them in Agora when I
have time.

We also distribute Octave binaries (it has been suggested that as of
4.0.0 Octave will handle this itself. We will see when that time
comes, no point in discussing this at the moment), and have an
alphabetic list of the functions in Octave (which jwe also suggested
could be moved to Octave as free time to make the change allows it).

>> 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.

> What is Forge?

Forget that the word Forge means anything. It's just the name of the
project. Maybe historically means it was hosted in SourceForge. Or
maybe because the original idea behind the project was to develop and
test new things which would be moved into core as they mature. So
Octave Forge was the place where Octave code was forged (I used to
think the name came from there, I don't know anymore). But bottom line
is, it doesn't matter. It's just the name of the project.

>>> Now, if we want to combine bug reports for applications and maintainers
>>> in
>>> the same tracker,
>>
>>
>> Tracker? We are only talking about mailing list. Bug reports are to be
>> discussed on the bug trackers so they should never appear on the
>> mailing list. I'll make sure to direct any discussion of Octave Forge
>> bugs to the Octave Forge bug tracker.
>
>
> 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.

>> That said, the only type of threads from the current Octave Forge
>> mailing list that would now appear in maintainers would be license
>> stuff, adding of new packages, google summer of code, etc... As an
>> example, for the month of November, these are the threads:
>
> Yes, those all make sense.  There is some overlap, which is fine.
> Occasional duplication hasn't struck me as a concern as of yet. Perhaps
> others feel otherwise.

It's not just occasional. Almost all of the forge threads related to
development are also mentioned in the maintainers mailing list.

> I guess the question is whether Octave Forge should be rolled into an all
> inclusive Octave.  Presumably that's the way it will be someday, provided
> things stabilize.  Is that day approaching?  Sort of, but not quite yet, I
> would argue.

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.

> However, the GUI will be a wave of issues in a
> multi-platform supported project.  If Forge-related posts get mixed with
> core-related posts with an increase due to GUI issues, could it be too much?

>From the last month example, having 4 extra posts from forge to the
maintainers mailing list shouldn't be much. If there is a problem it
would be the other way, people interested in forge only receiving
e-mails from core development. But developers of Octave Forge should
be aware of important changes in core, before a release is made. And
it makes sense that they add their voice in such discussions.

That the GUI may cause an increase in traffic should not be of concern
because it would either belong to help in building it (go to help), or
in the bug tracker.

Carnë