bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

Olaf Till-2
Alois,

Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package

https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php

despite the fact that it corresponds to a Matlab toolbox.

But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
from Octave Forge.

Would you accept this?

Olaf

--
public key id EAFE0591, e.g. on x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

Alois Schloegl-7

On 2017-12-29 11:22, Olaf Till wrote:
> Alois,
>
> Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
> turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package

Olaf,

do I need to wait until this vote has happened ? If yes, when will this
vote take place? (Out of curiosity - who is eligible to vote ?)

>
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>
> despite the fact that it corresponds to a Matlab toolbox.

I'm not sure I understand; what difference does it make whether it
corresponds to a Matlab toolbox ?

>
> But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
> 'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
> so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
> from Octave Forge.

I'm not sure I understand; what do you mean by "[taking a] .. package
off .. Octave Forge" ? And even a "community" package is usually
maintained on Octave Forge - why would you take it off ? Do I need to
worry about this - or is this about some other unrelated issue ?

>
> Would you accept this?
>
> Olaf
>

The two links
  https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
  https://octave.sourceforge.io/common-requirements.php
do not contain any language about requiring a specific (i.e.
octave-only) coding style. This is good and addresses my main concern.
This will allow maintaining compatibility to both target platforms,
Matlab and Octave, and no code-duplication would be necessary.

In summary, yes, this seems more than acceptable to me, Actually, if I
understand this correctly, it's not only "acceptable" but matches the
desired solution.


   Alois


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

Olaf Till-2
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Alois Schloegl wrote:
> On 2017-12-29 11:22, Olaf Till wrote:
> > Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
> > turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package
>
> do I need to wait until this vote has happened ?

Yes, if you please.

> If yes, when will this
> vote take place?

As soon as you have answered my question in a sense that makes the
vote useful.

My plan was to start the day before yesterday. Since my spare time
will be over at 2nd January, it would be nice if I could start the
vote today or tomorrow.

> > But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
> > 'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
> > so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
> > from Octave Forge.
>
> I'm not sure I understand; what do you mean by "[taking a] .. package
> off .. Octave Forge" ? And even a "community" package is usually
> maintained on Octave Forge - why would you take it off ? Do I need to
> worry about this - or is this about some other unrelated issue ?

We want to publish a package at Octave Forge either in the 'community'
or in the 'external' group, not in both at the same time (even if the
published versions are different). As long as you maintain 'bioinfo'
in the 'external' group, there should be no corresponding package in
the 'community' group (actually, for this specific package, having no
maintainer for it in the 'community' group would be the sole reason to
give it away into the 'external' group). However, once someone else
should be willing and able to maintain 'bioinfo' in the 'community'
group, and we see a need for it, we would let him be the maintainer
(instead of you...) and assign the package to the 'community' group
(this would mean that Matlab compatibiliy is not adhered to
anymore). The reason is that the package corresponds to a Matlab
toolbox, so we want a certain degree of community control over it, if
the resources are available.

The above is no 'contract'. I only want you to see all implications
before we ask the maintainers to spend time to vote.

Since your previous answer seemed ambiguous to me, please tell us
again if you understand the above and still want a vote.

Olaf

--
public key id EAFE0591, e.g. on x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

bredsj

I have followed this discussion for some time, my opinion is that democracy is complicating the issue. And the question; who is defining democracy in this case?


Steph


On 31/12/2017 13:16, Olaf Till wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Alois Schloegl wrote:
On 2017-12-29 11:22, Olaf Till wrote:
Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package
do I need to wait until this vote has happened ?
Yes, if you please.

If yes, when will this
vote take place?
As soon as you have answered my question in a sense that makes the
vote useful.

My plan was to start the day before yesterday. Since my spare time
will be over at 2nd January, it would be nice if I could start the
vote today or tomorrow.

But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
from Octave Forge.
I'm not sure I understand; what do you mean by "[taking a] .. package
off .. Octave Forge" ? And even a "community" package is usually
maintained on Octave Forge - why would you take it off ? Do I need to
worry about this - or is this about some other unrelated issue ?
We want to publish a package at Octave Forge either in the 'community'
or in the 'external' group, not in both at the same time (even if the
published versions are different). As long as you maintain 'bioinfo'
in the 'external' group, there should be no corresponding package in
the 'community' group (actually, for this specific package, having no
maintainer for it in the 'community' group would be the sole reason to
give it away into the 'external' group). However, once someone else
should be willing and able to maintain 'bioinfo' in the 'community'
group, and we see a need for it, we would let him be the maintainer
(instead of you...) and assign the package to the 'community' group
(this would mean that Matlab compatibiliy is not adhered to
anymore). The reason is that the package corresponds to a Matlab
toolbox, so we want a certain degree of community control over it, if
the resources are available.

The above is no 'contract'. I only want you to see all implications
before we ask the maintainers to spend time to vote.

Since your previous answer seemed ambiguous to me, please tell us
again if you understand the above and still want a vote.

Olaf


--
Steph Bredenhann Pr.Eng, Pr.CPM

Tel: 021 854 6927
Fax: 086 66 95 380
Mobile: 082 55 00 207

(sent from PC)
Steph Bredenhann
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

Alois Schloegl-7
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2
The answer took me some time, for two reasons: (1) I was speechless how
Olaf was framing the situation, and (2) I had the flu und had to stay in
bed.

I did not ask for a vote, it was Olaf who saw a need for a vote.
Concerning his question, I'm not sure if I understand it; or what this
vote will be about; or what the difference would be if the outcome of
the vote is yes or no. So I can not answer his question(s).

This is an utterly frustrating and discouraging situation for me. In
order to overcome that situation, I've applied the motto of 34C3 "tuwat"
[1], I've decided to fork bioinfo. fast-export was used to convert the
repository in order to maintain its history. The new repository is
available at

     https://github.com/schloegl/octmat-bioinfo

This repo will be maintained under a coding style that is compatible to
Octave AND Matlab. Both, Octave and Matlab, are target platforms. If the
code does not run correctly on one or both of the target platforms, it
is considered a bug. Contributions are welcome.


Cheers,
  Alois

[1] https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9293-abschluss



On 2017-12-31 12:16, Olaf Till wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Alois Schloegl wrote:
>> On 2017-12-29 11:22, Olaf Till wrote:
>>> Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
>>> turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package
>>
>> do I need to wait until this vote has happened ?
>
> Yes, if you please.
>
>> If yes, when will this
>> vote take place?
>
> As soon as you have answered my question in a sense that makes the
> vote useful.
>
> My plan was to start the day before yesterday. Since my spare time
> will be over at 2nd January, it would be nice if I could start the
> vote today or tomorrow.
>
>>> But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
>>> 'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
>>> so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
>>> from Octave Forge.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand; what do you mean by "[taking a] .. package
>> off .. Octave Forge" ? And even a "community" package is usually
>> maintained on Octave Forge - why would you take it off ? Do I need to
>> worry about this - or is this about some other unrelated issue ?
>
> We want to publish a package at Octave Forge either in the 'community'
> or in the 'external' group, not in both at the same time (even if the
> published versions are different). As long as you maintain 'bioinfo'
> in the 'external' group, there should be no corresponding package in
> the 'community' group (actually, for this specific package, having no
> maintainer for it in the 'community' group would be the sole reason to
> give it away into the 'external' group). However, once someone else
> should be willing and able to maintain 'bioinfo' in the 'community'
> group, and we see a need for it, we would let him be the maintainer
> (instead of you...) and assign the package to the 'community' group
> (this would mean that Matlab compatibiliy is not adhered to
> anymore). The reason is that the package corresponds to a Matlab
> toolbox, so we want a certain degree of community control over it, if
> the resources are available.
>
> The above is no 'contract'. I only want you to see all implications
> before we ask the maintainers to spend time to vote.
>
> Since your previous answer seemed ambiguous to me, please tell us
> again if you understand the above and still want a vote.
>
> Olaf
>


12