package maintainers please choose a package group

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

package maintainers please choose a package group

Olaf Till-2
Dear package maintainers,

please choose one of the two groups:

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

for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
for each package.

With the information we have so far, the packages listed below have
been preliminarily assigned to the "community" group.

Olaf

suggested community packages:

bim
cgi
communications
control
data-smoothing
database
dataframe
dicom
econometrics
fem-fenics
financial
fpl
fuzzy-logic-toolkit
ga
general
generate_html
geometry
gsl
image
image-acquisition
instrument-control
interval
io
level-set
linear-algebra
lssa
mapping
miscellaneous
mpi
msh
mvn
nurbs
ocs
optics
optim
parallel
quaternion
queueing
secs1d
secs2d
secs3d
signal
sockets
splines
statistics
strings
struct
vibes
video
vrml
windows
zeromq

--
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: package maintainers please choose a package group

Parsiad Azimzadeh
Hi Olaf,

> please choose one of the two groups:
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
> for each package.

I would prefer financial to stay in community.

Thanks for all of your hard work,
Par

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear package maintainers,
>
> please choose one of the two groups:
>
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>
> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
> for each package.
>
> With the information we have so far, the packages listed below have
> been preliminarily assigned to the "community" group.
>
> Olaf
>
> suggested community packages:
>
> bim
> cgi
> communications
> control
> data-smoothing
> database
> dataframe
> dicom
> econometrics
> fem-fenics
> financial
> fpl
> fuzzy-logic-toolkit
> ga
> general
> generate_html
> geometry
> gsl
> image
> image-acquisition
> instrument-control
> interval
> io
> level-set
> linear-algebra
> lssa
> mapping
> miscellaneous
> mpi
> msh
> mvn
> nurbs
> ocs
> optics
> optim
> parallel
> quaternion
> queueing
> secs1d
> secs2d
> secs3d
> signal
> sockets
> splines
> statistics
> strings
> struct
> vibes
> video
> vrml
> windows
> zeromq
>
> --
> public key id EAFE0591, e.g. on x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net



--
Parsiad Azimzadeh [http://parsiad.ca ]

DC 3594 - University of Waterloo,
200 University Avenue West,
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Daniel Kraft
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2
Hi!

On 2017-03-13 18:23, Olaf Till wrote:
> suggested community packages:
>
> level-set

Sounds good to me.

Yours,
Daniel

--
https://www.domob.eu/
OpenPGP: 1142 850E 6DFF 65BA 63D6  88A8 B249 2AC4 A733 0737
Namecoin: id/domob -> https://nameid.org/?name=domob
--
Done:  Arc-Bar-Cav-Hea-Kni-Ran-Rog-Sam-Tou-Val-Wiz
To go: Mon-Pri


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

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Colin Macdonald-2
In reply to this post by Parsiad Azimzadeh
> suggested community packages:

I would be happy to have "symbolic" considered part of the community
packages.

thanks,
Colin




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Susnak
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2
Dear Olaf,

ltfat should be an external package.

Zdenek


On 13.3.2017 18:23, Olaf Till wrote:

> Dear package maintainers,
>
> please choose one of the two groups:
>
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>
> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
> for each package.
>
> With the information we have so far, the packages listed below have
> been preliminarily assigned to the "community" group.
>
> Olaf
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Carlo de Falco-2
In reply to this post by Parsiad Azimzadeh

> On 13 Mar 2017, at 18:31, Parsiad Azimzadeh <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Olaf,
>
>> please choose one of the two groups:
>> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
>> for each package.
>
> I would prefer financial to stay in community.
>
> Thanks for all of your hard work,
> Par

Hi,

I cannot seem to find the message that initiated this thread either in my local storage
or in the online archive, could someone please provide a link so I can recap the whole
discussion?

c.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Carlo de Falco-2

> On 13 Mar 2017, at 19:37, Carlo De Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 13 Mar 2017, at 18:31, Parsiad Azimzadeh <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Olaf,
>>
>>> please choose one of the two groups:
>>> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>>> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
>>> for each package.
>>
>> I would prefer financial to stay in community.
>>
>> Thanks for all of your hard work,
>> Par
>
> Hi,
>
> I cannot seem to find the message that initiated this thread either in my local storage
> or in the online archive, could someone please provide a link so I can recap the whole
> discussion?
>
> c.


Never mind, I just received that initial message.
I wonder how come it arrived two hours after the replies ...

c.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Carlo de Falco-2
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2

> On 13 Mar 2017, at 18:23, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> With the information we have so far, the packages listed below have
> been preliminarily assigned to the "community" group.
>
> Olaf



> suggested community packages:
>
> bim
> fpl
> mpi
> msh
> nurbs
> ocs
> secs1d
> secs2d
> secs3d

I'm not sure the information you have are correct.

For example ocs is already being maintained in an external
repository (which is synchronized to forge only at time of release)
so I would say it would fit the "external" group.

On the other hand, the website states that also "community" packages
can be maintained in a separate repository, so maybe it's me who really
don't get the difference?

Is the main difference that should guide my choice whether I would like
"administrators" to push changes "even without asking before"?

If I would prefer to get a pull request or a patch submitted to the tracker
for me to evaluate before pushing does this mean that the packages above
should be considered "external"?

c.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Colin Macdonald-2
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2
On 13/03/17 10:23 AM, Olaf Till wrote:
> Dear package maintainers,
>
> please choose one of the two groups:
>
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>
> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
> for each package.

I think "doctest" should be in the "community" group; but my
co-maintainer Michael should have a say if wanted.

Colin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Olaf Till-2
In reply to this post by Carlo de Falco-2
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:47:46PM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
> For example ocs is already being maintained in an external
> repository (which is synchronized to forge only at time of release)
> so I would say it would fit the "external" group.

Community packages should synchronize _not_ only at time of
release. It should be reasonable to look into the OF repository of the
package for the current state of its development.

> On the other hand, the website states that also "community" packages
> can be maintained in a separate repository, so maybe it's me who really
> don't get the difference?

See above.

> Is the main difference that should guide my choice whether I would like
> "administrators" to push changes "even without asking before"?
>
> If I would prefer to get a pull request or a patch submitted to the tracker
> for me to evaluate before pushing does this mean that the packages above
> should be considered "external"?

Pushing without asking will be an exception, reserved for obvious
changes.

There are other features of or requirements for community packages,
given at the link in the original e-mail. If you are content with
them, choose community.

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: package maintainers please choose a package group

Carlo de Falco-2

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 08:30, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:47:46PM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
>> For example ocs is already being maintained in an external
>> repository (which is synchronized to forge only at time of release)
>> so I would say it would fit the "external" group.
> Community packages should synchronize _not_ only at time of
> release. It should be reasonable to look into the OF repository of the
> package for the current state of its development.

OK, so OCS definitely should go into "external".

The same applies to odepkg, but I see that was already
not in the list of "community" packages.

It currently also applies to the secs{1,2,3}D packages, but
I am working to bring the main development repository for
them back to OF (and to turn them into one single package if I manage)
some time soon so I'll wait to make a decision for those.

>> On the other hand, the website states that also "community" packages
>> can be maintained in a separate repository, so maybe it's me who really
>> don't get the difference?
>
> See above.
>
>> Is the main difference that should guide my choice whether I would like
>> "administrators" to push changes "even without asking before"?
>>
>> If I would prefer to get a pull request or a patch submitted to the tracker
>> for me to evaluate before pushing does this mean that the packages above
>> should be considered "external"?
>
> Pushing without asking will be an exception, reserved for obvious
> changes.
> There are other features of or requirements for community packages,
> given at the link in the original e-mail. If you are content with
> them, choose community.

I am happy with other requirements but, as long as I am listed
as the maintainer, I unfortunately cannot accept the "pushing without
asking" part. Any chance you may be changing this rule?

> Olaf

c.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Olaf Till-2
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:58:38AM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
> I am happy with other requirements but, as long as I am listed
> as the maintainer, I unfortunately cannot accept the "pushing without
> asking" part. Any chance you may be changing this rule?

Maybe, but do you have an alternative suggestion? The one real need
for this that I currently see is: sometimes package fixes may be
provided by Octave, typically JWE, to make them work with a basic
change in Octave. Previously, such fixes were just applied. To ask
first, and to wait for all responses, is an additional maintenance
effort.

Consider that the maintainer isn't required to accept such a
patch. He/she can revert or change it. So this is actually not
principally different from the general requirements that the
maintainer should cooperate and should handle submitted patches.

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: package maintainers please choose a package group

Carlo de Falco-2

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 10:00, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:58:38AM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
>> I am happy with other requirements but, as long as I am listed
>> as the maintainer, I unfortunately cannot accept the "pushing without
>> asking" part. Any chance you may be changing this rule?
>
> Maybe, but do you have an alternative suggestion?

If the package has a repository on bitbucket or github one could use
a pull request, which sounds better to me. Does sourceforge have this feature?

> The one real need
> for this that I currently see is: sometimes package fixes may be
> provided by Octave, typically JWE, to make them work with a basic
> change in Octave. Previously, such fixes were just applied. To ask
> first, and to wait for all responses, is an additional maintenance
> effort.
>
> Consider that the maintainer isn't required to accept such a
> patch. He/she can revert or change it. So this is actually not
> principally different from the general requirements that the
> maintainer should cooperate and should handle submitted patches.
> Olaf

c.





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Olaf Till-2
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 09:29:47AM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
> If the package has a repository on bitbucket or github one could use
> a pull request, which sounds better to me. Does sourceforge have
> this feature?

If there is a trivial fix to 30 packages, it would be too much hassle
for me to click around at sourceforge for each package and keep track
of the responses. And what is the effective difference? As in a pull
request, you don't need to use the pushed changeset. You can leave it
as a dangling branch.

For the usual case, i.e. the changes are discussed before pushing,
we'd e-mail the changeset to the maintainer, or post it to the patch
tracker for discussion.

What I actually meant with my question was if you have an alternative
suggestion for the wording in the groups description.

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: package maintainers please choose a package group

Nir Krakauer-3
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2
The packages I maintain (splines, econometrics, mvn) can be kept as community.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

PhilipNienhuis
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2
Olaf Till-2 wrote
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:58:38AM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
> I am happy with other requirements but, as long as I am listed
> as the maintainer, I unfortunately cannot accept the "pushing without
> asking" part. Any chance you may be changing this rule?

Maybe, but do you have an alternative suggestion? The one real need
for this that I currently see is: sometimes package fixes may be
provided by Octave, typically JWE, to make them work with a basic
change in Octave. Previously, such fixes were just applied. To ask
first, and to wait for all responses, is an additional maintenance
effort.
To me that looks like just another good reason for pull requests rather than "hard" pushes. No need to wait then for push consent from a package maintainer.
AFAICS the (occasional) changes JWE made to OF packages relate to Octave's dev branch, while many OF package maintainers try to keep their package working with as much past stable releases of Octave as they reasonably can.

The exception I see would be more for administration, like general top level Makefile changes, etc. I can see no issue there.

Anyway as regards rules we're not in a court room but in an OSS volunteer project. I think all in all the requirements for community projects are reasonable enough.

Philip
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Olaf Till-2
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 06:23:07PM +0100, Olaf Till wrote:
> Dear package maintainers,
>
> please choose one of the two groups:
>
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>
> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
> for each package.

Done, with the requested changes in assignment. If you'd still like to
change it, please speak up.

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: package maintainers please choose a package group

jbect
Le 15/03/2017 à 09:09, Olaf Till a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 06:23:07PM +0100, Olaf Till wrote:
Dear package maintainers,

please choose one of the two groups:

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

for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
for each package.
Done, with the requested changes in assignment. If you'd still like to
change it, please speak up.


Looks great.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Carlo de Falco-2
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 13:09, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 09:29:47AM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
>> If the package has a repository on bitbucket or github one could use
>> a pull request, which sounds better to me. Does sourceforge have
>> this feature?
>
> If there is a trivial fix to 30 packages, it would be too much hassle
> for me to click around at sourceforge for each package and keep track
> of the responses. And what is the effective difference? As in a pull
> request, you don't need to use the pushed changeset. You can leave it
> as a dangling branch.
>
> For the usual case, i.e. the changes are discussed before pushing,
> we'd e-mail the changeset to the maintainer, or post it to the patch
> tracker for discussion.
>
> What I actually meant with my question was if you have an alternative
> suggestion for the wording in the groups description.
>
> Olaf

As Philip noted, a pull request would actually create less effort, not more.
Anyway, I would never want to create you any hassle, so please mark all my
packages as external so you don't have to worry about them.

c.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

Carlo de Falco-2
In reply to this post by Olaf Till-2

> On 13 Mar 2017, at 18:23, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear package maintainers,
>
> please choose one of the two groups:
>
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
>
> for your packages. The group will be indicated at the packages page
> for each package.
>
> With the information we have so far, the packages listed below have
> been preliminarily assigned to the "community" group.
>
> Olaf
>
> suggested community packages:
>
> bim
> cgi
> communications
> control
> data-smoothing
> database
> dataframe
> dicom
> econometrics
> fem-fenics
> financial
> fpl
> fuzzy-logic-toolkit
> ga
> general
> generate_html
> geometry
> gsl
> image
> image-acquisition
> instrument-control
> interval
> io
> level-set
> linear-algebra
> lssa
> mapping
> miscellaneous
> mpi
> msh
> mvn
> nurbs
> ocs
> optics
> optim
> parallel
> quaternion
> queueing
> secs1d
> secs2d
> secs3d
> signal
> sockets
> splines
> statistics
> strings
> struct
> vibes
> video
> vrml
> windows
> zeromq
>
> --
> public key id EAFE0591, e.g. on x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net


Hi,

The recipient list of this email is incomplete, apart from myself, at least the maintainer of fem-fenics is missing
(but that's just the first one I noticed, there may be others).

Not all package maintainers regularly check posts from the mailing list so I would recomend forwarding the message to them directly.

c.




123