Quantcast

cleaning list of octave forge developers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

cleaning list of octave forge developers

Carnë Draug
Hi everyone

spring is almost finished and we're a bit late on the cleaning. The
list of people with commit access to the repositories has been
increasing a lot (current number is 57 developers). I'll be removing
access to those who seem inactive (based on number of commits done in
the last 12 months) in 1 week time. If your name is the following list
and you wish to maintain commit access to the repository, just reply
to this e-mail.

adb014
axkma
batman52
blondandy
culpo
dreisamrd
etienne
fpoto
gianvito
gnumuthu
highegg
jmencisom
jgpallero
krthie
lindnerb
martinhepperle
mcreel
michaelschmid
nitnit
pauldreik
pkienzle
przykry2004
pvlanspeary
slackydeb
thomas-weber
treichl
tsailer
vathomas
wwwandy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Carnë Draug
On 10 June 2013 17:04, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> spring is almost finished and we're a bit late on the cleaning. The
> list of people with commit access to the repositories has been
> increasing a lot (current number is 57 developers). I'll be removing
> access to those who seem inactive (based on number of commits done in
> the last 12 months) in 1 week time. If your name is the following list
> and you wish to maintain commit access to the repository, just reply
> to this e-mail.

Done.

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Júlio Hoffimann

Done.

Thanks Carnë!

Cleaning up things should be a priority, specially regarding Octave-Forge.

So, all packages will now have their own repositories? This would implicitly solve the issue with unmaintained code and poor contributions.

We should provide the infrastructure (a hosting website) much like other languages do, and then people would upload their libraries accordingly. I've started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at all.

Having two places for hosting Octave libraries is... More complex ==> Less attractive ==> Won't work.

The difference Octave-Forge vs. Agora is difficult to grasp even for us involved with the codebase, imagine how difficult it is for ordinary users.

What are the current plans for Agora? I know there is a GSOC student taking care of it?

Best,
Júlio. 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
> all.

Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
the packages and update them (i.e. OF)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

c.-2

On 17 Jun 2013, at 15:19, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
>> all.
>
> Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
> the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
> hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
> the packages and update them (i.e. OF)

BTW, if mercurial is gaining more importance on OF I think a link to it in the
navigation bar next to the SVN link, don't you agree?
c.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Carnë Draug
On 17 June 2013 22:35, c. <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 17 Jun 2013, at 15:19, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
>>> all.
>>
>> Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
>> the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
>> hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
>> the packages and update them (i.e. OF)
>
> BTW, if mercurial is gaining more importance on OF I think a link to it in the
> navigation bar next to the SVN link, don't you agree?

Yes. The SVN links should be replaced by Code with a link to the new
page http://octave.sourceforge.net/code.html

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Carnë Draug
On 18 June 2013 02:20, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17 June 2013 22:35, c. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Jun 2013, at 15:19, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
>>> the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
>>> hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
>>> the packages and update them (i.e. OF)
>>
>> BTW, if mercurial is gaining more importance on OF I think a link to it in the
>> navigation bar next to the SVN link, don't you agree?
>
> Yes. The SVN links should be replaced by Code with a link to the new
> page http://octave.sourceforge.net/code.html

Oh! The developers instructions at
http://octave.sourceforge.net/developers.html also need a major
rewrite. I'm in favor of having that link redirect to a page on the
wiki.

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 June 2013 02:20, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 17 June 2013 22:35, c. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2013, at 15:19, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
>>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
>>>> the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
>>>> hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
>>>> the packages and update them (i.e. OF)
>>>
>>> BTW, if mercurial is gaining more importance on OF I think a link to it in the
>>> navigation bar next to the SVN link, don't you agree?
>>
>> Yes. The SVN links should be replaced by Code with a link to the new
>> page http://octave.sourceforge.net/code.html
>
> Oh! The developers instructions at
> http://octave.sourceforge.net/developers.html also need a major
> rewrite. I'm in favor of having that link redirect to a page on the
> wiki.
>
> Carnë

Hi,

What is the ultimate tool for the migration form svn to hg?
I think people want to keep the history, right?
Otherwise I would go
svn export
and then commit the result to the hg repo.

Let me know.

Thanks
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Júlio Hoffimann
What is the ultimate tool for the migration form svn to hg?


Júlio.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On 18 June 2013 08:57, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2013 02:20, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 17 June 2013 22:35, c. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Jun 2013, at 15:19, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
>>>>> the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
>>>>> hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
>>>>> the packages and update them (i.e. OF)
>>>>
>>>> BTW, if mercurial is gaining more importance on OF I think a link to it in the
>>>> navigation bar next to the SVN link, don't you agree?
>>>
>>> Yes. The SVN links should be replaced by Code with a link to the new
>>> page http://octave.sourceforge.net/code.html
>>
>> Oh! The developers instructions at
>> http://octave.sourceforge.net/developers.html also need a major
>> rewrite. I'm in favor of having that link redirect to a page on the
>> wiki.
>>
>> Carnë
>
> Hi,
>
> What is the ultimate tool for the migration form svn to hg?
> I think people want to keep the history, right?
> Otherwise I would go
> svn export
> and then commit the result to the hg repo.
>
> Let me know.

Yes, we are keeping the history. I've started doing it slowly, one
package at a time. Leaving some packages to the end because they
either had many binary files committed by accident that I would like
to strip from history, or because they have common history with other
packages (for example, teh time package which was merged into
financial).

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 June 2013 08:57, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2013 02:20, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On 17 June 2013 22:35, c. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Jun 2013, at 15:19, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
>>>>>> the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
>>>>>> hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
>>>>>> the packages and update them (i.e. OF)
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, if mercurial is gaining more importance on OF I think a link to it in the
>>>>> navigation bar next to the SVN link, don't you agree?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The SVN links should be replaced by Code with a link to the new
>>>> page http://octave.sourceforge.net/code.html
>>>
>>> Oh! The developers instructions at
>>> http://octave.sourceforge.net/developers.html also need a major
>>> rewrite. I'm in favor of having that link redirect to a page on the
>>> wiki.
>>>
>>> Carnë
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> What is the ultimate tool for the migration form svn to hg?
>> I think people want to keep the history, right?
>> Otherwise I would go
>> svn export
>> and then commit the result to the hg repo.
>>
>> Let me know.
>
> Yes, we are keeping the history. I've started doing it slowly, one
> package at a time. Leaving some packages to the end because they
> either had many binary files committed by accident that I would like
> to strip from history, or because they have common history with other
> packages (for example, teh time package which was merged into
> financial).
>
> Carnë

So, shall I try to migrate geometry or you want to do it?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Carnë Draug
On 18 June 2013 16:23, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2013 08:57, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On 18 June 2013 02:20, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> On 17 June 2013 22:35, c. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Jun 2013, at 15:19, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Júlio Hoffimann
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> started to think the separation Octave-Forge != Agora doesn't make sense at
>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Julio, yes, eventually we will try to merge the two, that was part of
>>>>>>> the original idea. But it will take time. Also we would like to keep a
>>>>>>> hard wall between one-time commits to Agora and people who maintain
>>>>>>> the packages and update them (i.e. OF)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, if mercurial is gaining more importance on OF I think a link to it in the
>>>>>> navigation bar next to the SVN link, don't you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. The SVN links should be replaced by Code with a link to the new
>>>>> page http://octave.sourceforge.net/code.html
>>>>
>>>> Oh! The developers instructions at
>>>> http://octave.sourceforge.net/developers.html also need a major
>>>> rewrite. I'm in favor of having that link redirect to a page on the
>>>> wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Carnë
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What is the ultimate tool for the migration form svn to hg?
>>> I think people want to keep the history, right?
>>> Otherwise I would go
>>> svn export
>>> and then commit the result to the hg repo.
>>>
>>> Let me know.
>>
>> Yes, we are keeping the history. I've started doing it slowly, one
>> package at a time. Leaving some packages to the end because they
>> either had many binary files committed by accident that I would like
>> to strip from history, or because they have common history with other
>> packages (for example, teh time package which was merged into
>> financial).
>>
>> Carnë
>
> So, shall I try to migrate geometry or you want to do it?

No, I will do it.

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So so those files don't change at all and are not even the actual
> package documentation? It seems to me they are something you should
> keep yourself but not being commited. Example: it's my understanding
> that Ben has a script that runs the demos and tests of Octave plot
> commands in matlab to compare the results. But these are never
> commited to the repo. By the way, that's the reason those are the only
> demos that are "written in matlab" with single quotes and simple "end"
> to close blocks.

Carne, I work in many computers and I would like to have the port of
geometry centralized. The files you mentioned help me to do the port,
I think it is proper then that they are in the repository. If you do
not like this and you remove them, you will just make my work harder.
Do as you please.
The Demos folder are also to be ported, most things inside devel
folder (doesn't the devel name indicate "work in progress"?) there is
many code there that was written by the original author for matlab and
I have to port it.

My decision is *not* to remove those files form the repo. If your is
to do it, is up to you, but again, you may slow down the port of
geometry even more than what is already. Are you having space issues
in the repo or why are you so eager to remove these files? Or is this
a case of methodological imperialism?

> I mean all the png files inside devel/Demos/*/html. I'm thinking of
> filtering out all the html folders inside devel/Demos plus
> devel/Demos/curvedGraph/bwlabel_miss.mat from the commits when
> creating the mercurial repo. Also, why is geometry/src/octclip a copy
> of main/octclip/src? Should the octclip package have been removed
> then?

It was merged with geometry long ago. I never understood why octclip
was still dangling by itself. If the maintainer agrees then the
octclip package can be removed.
Loading...