moving Octave Forge mailing list to core's mailman server

[Carnë Draug-2]

Hi everyone

I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
([hidden email]) to the same server as as the ones
from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
related mailing lists:

* [hidden email] - same as now, discussion of development of Octave core
* [hidden email] - new mailing list for discussion of development of
Octave Forge
* [hidden email] - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
Octave (packages included)

Note that I'm moving all help stuff to [hidden email], so most of the
Octave Forge threads would now be done in octave help. Their subjects
overlap too much to make sense keep them separated (the only
separation is whether one of the suggestion involves the use of an OF
package). Things such as, "how can I use the butter function to design
a low pass filter?" would now belong to help and not to the forge
mailing list. The new forge mailing list would be for discussion of
forge development issues (the core equivalent to maintainers).

Another reason I propose this change is that octave-dev is misleading,
specially for people submitting stuff from Nabble who see the
following http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-f1599824.subapps.html
when starting a new thread. If we would make a change to fix this, it
would force subscribers having to subscribe again and maybe change
mail client settings. We might as well propose a better arrangement.

Other reasons:
* some e-mails are sent for more than one mailing list. If the same
mailman server is handling them, this should prevent people from
receiving 2 e-mails with the same subject.
* at the bottom of each e-mail from the Octave Forge mailing list
there's a add (some longer than others). This move would remove them
since they are added by SourceForge and we have no control over it.

How I propose to do the merging: if no one opposes to this, move all
current subscribers of the Octave Forge mailing list, to both forge
and help (this can be done automatically, subscribers should only
receive an e-mail to confirm). Those who were on it for the help can
unsubscribe from forge, and those who were on it for the development
can unsubscribe from help. I'll send an e-mail to the mailing list
when such change takes place with instructions on how to unsubscribe
(and also suggest to instead change configuration to receive a daily
digest of the other rather than unsubscribe because there's too many
individual e-mails).

Carnë

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Olaf Till-2]

Hi Carnë,

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:17:40PM +0100, Carnë Draug wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
> ([hidden email]) to the same server as as the ones
> from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
> related mailing lists:
>
> * [hidden email] - same as now, discussion of development of Octave core
> * [hidden email] - new mailing list for discussion of development of
> Octave Forge
> * [hidden email] - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
> Octave (packages included)

I'd vote for pro.

But I'd call it [hidden email], so it is clearer what is meant.
Also, 'forge' relates to SourceForge, doesn't it? And who can be sure
that the package repository will stick to SourceForge forever.

> ...
>
> Other reasons:
> * some e-mails are sent for more than one mailing list. If the same
> mailman server is handling them, this should prevent people from
> receiving 2 e-mails with the same subject.

Really? It does not seem to be so with octave-help and
octave-maintainers now. And actually I would like to see what list a
mail was meant for, even if there was more than one destination.

But I really think duplicating mails should be avoided at all. One
reason for the suggested change could be to avoid duplicates. But it
does not seem to avoid duplicates between 'forge' and
octave-maintainers.

Regards,

Olaf

> ...

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Olaf Till-2]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:46:50PM +0100, Olaf Till wrote:
> ...
>
> And actually I would like to see what list a
> mail was meant for, even if there was more than one destination.

Sorry, this part was nonsense. Please Forget it. Olaf

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Daniel Sebald]

On 11/23/2012 12:17 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
> ([hidden email]) to the same server as as the ones
> from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
> related mailing lists:
>
> * [hidden email] - same as now, discussion of development of Octave core
> * [hidden email] - new mailing list for discussion of development of
> Octave Forge

Wasn't there some discussion about changing the name "forge" because of
confusion with SourceForge?

What about Agora?  Should that have it's own mail list?


> * [hidden email] - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
> Octave (packages included)

How much activity does the help list get?  What is it primarily for?
For newer users needing help with language?  Help for compiling?  Just
asking questions here as a means to review the current situation.

Dan

>
> Note that I'm moving all help stuff to [hidden email], so most of the
> Octave Forge threads would now be done in octave help. Their subjects
> overlap too much to make sense keep them separated (the only
> separation is whether one of the suggestion involves the use of an OF
> package). Things such as, "how can I use the butter function to design
> a low pass filter?" would now belong to help and not to the forge
> mailing list. The new forge mailing list would be for discussion of
> forge development issues (the core equivalent to maintainers).
>
> Another reason I propose this change is that octave-dev is misleading,
> specially for people submitting stuff from Nabble who see the
> following http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-f1599824.subapps.html
> when starting a new thread. If we would make a change to fix this, it
> would force subscribers having to subscribe again and maybe change
> mail client settings. We might as well propose a better arrangement.
>
> Other reasons:
> * some e-mails are sent for more than one mailing list. If the same
> mailman server is handling them, this should prevent people from
> receiving 2 e-mails with the same subject.
> * at the bottom of each e-mail from the Octave Forge mailing list
> there's a add (some longer than others). This move would remove them
> since they are added by SourceForge and we have no control over it.
>
> How I propose to do the merging: if no one opposes to this, move all
> current subscribers of the Octave Forge mailing list, to both forge
> and help (this can be done automatically, subscribers should only
> receive an e-mail to confirm). Those who were on it for the help can
> unsubscribe from forge, and those who were on it for the development
> can unsubscribe from help. I'll send an e-mail to the mailing list
> when such change takes place with instructions on how to unsubscribe
> (and also suggest to instead change configuration to receive a daily
> digest of the other rather than unsubscribe because there's too many
> individual e-mails).
>
> Carnë

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Carnë Draug-2]

On 23 November 2012 19:46, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd call it [hidden email], so it is clearer what is meant.
> Also, 'forge' relates to SourceForge, doesn't it? And who can be sure
> that the package repository will stick to SourceForge forever.

On 23 November 2012 20:00, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Wasn't there some discussion about changing the name "forge" because of
> confusion with SourceForge?
>
> What about Agora?  Should that have it's own mail list?

Yes there was a discussion at OctConf and we agreed to keep the name
Forge. Agora would have 3 sections, one of them named forge for Octave
Forge. It's likely that Forge came from being hosted at Sourceforge,
but if we move out we can still keep that part of the name.

I don't think that packages is a name representative of what the
mailing list is meant for. There are other packages not part of Octave
Forge. And this will be specially true if Agora works and many people
upload their own packages (who will not be part of Octave Forge). Such
name would suggest that we are developing them and giving them
support. We will not. For such cases, users should contact the Agora
package author directly. That is also the reason why Agora should not
have its own mailing list. If one compares Agora to FileExchange, it
does not make sense to have everyone that ever submitted code to
FileExchange on a mailing list in case a user has a question for one
of them.

On 23 November 2012 19:46, Olaf Till <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:17:40PM +0100, Carnë Draug wrote:
>> * some e-mails are sent for more than one mailing list. If the same
>> mailman server is handling them, this should prevent people from
>> receiving 2 e-mails with the same subject.
>
> Really? It does not seem to be so with octave-help and
> octave-maintainers now.

Oh! I thought mailman was smarter than that. It may be gmail that is
fusing the 2 e-mails together, I assumed it was mailman doing.

On 23 November 2012 20:00, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> wrote:
> How much activity does the help list get?

In what units?

> What is it primarily for? For
> newer users needing help with language?  Help for compiling?  Just asking
> questions here as a means to review the current situation.

The help list is to obtain help with Octave, be it compiling,
vectorizing code, how to use a specific function, how to solve a
specific problem with Octave, and also for announcements such as new
Octave releases, new Forge package releases, people offering jobs to
Octave users, and anything else that is not related to the development
of Octave.

Carnë

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Daniel Sebald]

On 11/23/2012 02:26 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:

> On 23 November 2012 19:46, Olaf Till<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> I'd call it [hidden email], so it is clearer what is meant.
>> Also, 'forge' relates to SourceForge, doesn't it? And who can be sure
>> that the package repository will stick to SourceForge forever.
>
> On 23 November 2012 20:00, Daniel J Sebald<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Wasn't there some discussion about changing the name "forge" because of
>> confusion with SourceForge?
>>
>> What about Agora?  Should that have it's own mail list?
>
> Yes there was a discussion at OctConf and we agreed to keep the name
> Forge. Agora would have 3 sections, one of them named forge for Octave
> Forge. It's likely that Forge came from being hosted at Sourceforge,
> but if we move out we can still keep that part of the name.
>
> I don't think that packages is a name representative of what the
> mailing list is meant for. There are other packages not part of Octave
> Forge. And this will be specially true if Agora works and many people
> upload their own packages (who will not be part of Octave Forge). Such
> name would suggest that we are developing them and giving them
> support. We will not. For such cases, users should contact the Agora
> package author directly. That is also the reason why Agora should not
> have its own mailing list. If one compares Agora to FileExchange, it
> does not make sense to have everyone that ever submitted code to
> FileExchange on a mailing list in case a user has a question for one
> of them.

OK, makes sense.  May want to note that in the Agora documentation, that
much of it is not community supported, but individually supported.

> On 23 November 2012 19:46, Olaf Till<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:17:40PM +0100, Carnë Draug wrote:
>>> * some e-mails are sent for more than one mailing list. If the same
>>> mailman server is handling them, this should prevent people from
>>> receiving 2 e-mails with the same subject.
>>
>> Really? It does not seem to be so with octave-help and
>> octave-maintainers now.
>
> Oh! I thought mailman was smarter than that. It may be gmail that is
> fusing the 2 e-mails together, I assumed it was mailman doing.
>
> On 23 November 2012 20:00, Daniel J Sebald<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> How much activity does the help list get?
>
> In what units?

I just searched the archives--wow that list gets a lot of activity,
hundreds of posts per month.  Can't really change that one.

Still "forge" I wonder about.  The term seems too broad and vague.

Dan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2]

On 23 November 2012 15:40, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Still "forge" I wonder about.  The term seems too broad and vague.

"Forge" is a pretty generic term for a code sharing site, although
SourceForge happens to be the most popular one. ForjaIris and GForge
come to mind as alternative examples.

- Jordi G. H.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Carnë Draug-2]

On 23 November 2012 19:17, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
> ([hidden email]) to the same server as as the ones
> from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
> related mailing lists:
>
> * [hidden email] - same as now, discussion of development of Octave core
> * [hidden email] - new mailing list for discussion of development of
> Octave Forge
> * [hidden email] - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
> Octave (packages included)

I spoke with JWE about this and he suggested to keep only the
maintainers and help mailing lists, moving the development discussions
of Octave Forge to the Octave core maintainers mailing list. That
should avoid any confusion new users may have.

I do not oppose to it, after all there's not that many Octave Forge
only development threads.

Carnë

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Daniel Sebald]

On 11/25/2012 11:47 AM, Carnë Draug wrote:

> On 23 November 2012 19:17, Carnë Draug<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
>> ([hidden email]) to the same server as as the ones
>> from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
>> related mailing lists:
>>
>> * [hidden email] - same as now, discussion of development of Octave core
>> * [hidden email] - new mailing list for discussion of development of
>> Octave Forge
>> * [hidden email] - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
>> Octave (packages included)
>
> I spoke with JWE about this and he suggested to keep only the
> maintainers and help mailing lists, moving the development discussions
> of Octave Forge to the Octave core maintainers mailing list. That
> should avoid any confusion new users may have.
>
> I do not oppose to it, after all there's not that many Octave Forge
> only development threads.

Traffic fluctuates.  Sometimes one is more active than the other.
Before combining these two, how about considering some alternate names?
  I get both mailing lists at the moment.  I do like the separation for
the reason you explained very well a month or two ago, i.e., folks tend
to gravitate toward one list because it is too much to pay attention to
everything.

To me, "forge" is simply too generic.  That the term "forge" may be
common for other projects doesn't change that fact.  We feel these two
are good:

[hidden email]
[hidden email]

As the third category, how about:

[hidden email]
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

Any confusion could be cleared up as part of the Octave.org web page.
Although the web page does explain matters well in terms of expected
help, it doesn't present mailing list info in a succinct and clear way.
  If instead the "Mailing Lists" info were organized either graphically
or in table format:

[hidden email]     [hidden email]     [hidden email]

     blurb                    blurb                       blurb

where the blurbs might be something like

help: For introductory and operational details slightly beyond program
syntax.

applications: For advanced features such as packages and interface to
other software.

maintainers: For programming specifics related to the core C++ code.

Now, if we want to combine bug reports for applications and maintainers
in the same tracker, that's fine, but have a drop-down category that
makes the distinction.  Also, for the HTML shortcut for
"[hidden email]" we could replace launching an email to a link of the
explanation about expected help, i.e., a short little detour to help
weed out beginners asking rudimentary syntax questions.  Put the email
launch shortcut there.

Dan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Carnë Draug-2]

On 25 November 2012 19:58, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/25/2012 11:47 AM, Carnė Draug wrote:
>>
>> On 23 November 2012 19:17, Carnė Draug<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone
>>>
>>> I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
>>> ([hidden email]) to the same server as as the ones
>>> from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
>>> related mailing lists:
>>>
>>> * [hidden email] - same as now, discussion of development of
>>> Octave core
>>> * [hidden email] - new mailing list for discussion of development of
>>> Octave Forge
>>> * [hidden email] - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
>>> Octave (packages included)
>>
>>
>> I spoke with JWE about this and he suggested to keep only the
>> maintainers and help mailing lists, moving the development discussions
>> of Octave Forge to the Octave core maintainers mailing list. That
>> should avoid any confusion new users may have.
>>
>> I do not oppose to it, after all there's not that many Octave Forge
>> only development threads.
>
>
> Traffic fluctuates.  Sometimes one is more active than the other. Before
> combining these two, how about considering some alternate names?  I get both
> mailing lists at the moment.  I do like the separation for the reason you
> explained very well a month or two ago, i.e., folks tend to gravitate toward
> one list because it is too much to pay attention to everything.
>
> To me, "forge" is simply too generic.  That the term "forge" may be common
> for other projects doesn't change that fact.  We feel these two are good:

Forge is not too generic since the project name is Octave Forge.
Therefore, no doubt should come out of an address such as
[hidden email].

> As the third category, how about:
>
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
>
> [snip]
>
> applications: For advanced features such as packages and interface to other
> software.

You seem to be confused about what Octave Forge is. We are not the go
to place for all applications, packages and advanced Octave stuff.
There's plenty of applications and packages for Octave that are not
part of Forge. Calling it advanced is insulting to core as if one
could not do advanced stuff with core only.

> 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.

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:

- these ones were in both maintainers and forge mailing list and don't
really count (this seems to becoming more common over time) :

* this very own thread
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octconf-2013-td4646964.html -
discussion of OctConf2013
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/low-level-I-O-GPIB-USBTMC-VXI11-td4646993.html
- about various instrument control packages that are not part of
OctaveForge and whether they could be merged (descended into
discussion of legal stuff and was eventually moved to the maintainers
mailing list)
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/complex-error-function-td4645714.html
- someone shared code for Octave and it was discussed where it should
go

- http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/removing-java-package-from-SVN-tree-td4647021.html
- this ones was about the removal of the java package from Octave
Forge since it was moved to Octave core. It was not mentioned in the
maintainers mailing list but I wouldn't not have been out of place
together with an announcement of its move

- the following 4 e-mails were all on the same subject. We decide to
restrict the licenses in forge and sent a couple of e-mails to the
copyright owners asking to relicense their code

* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/removal-of-non-standard-licenses-in-Octave-Forge-td4645841.html
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Re-License-Andy-Adler-s-code-in-Octave-Forge-td4646143.html
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/License-of-medfilt1-in-Octave-Forge-td4646144.html
* http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/FreeBSD-vs-simplified-BSD-td4645843.html

Carnë

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Daniel Sebald]

On 11/25/2012 01:48 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:

> On 25 November 2012 19:58, Daniel J Sebald<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 11:47 AM, Carnė Draug wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23 November 2012 19:17, Carnė Draug<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>
>>>> I'm proposing moving the current Octave Forge mailing list
>>>> ([hidden email]) to the same server as as the ones
>>>> from Octave core. My suggestion is to have the following octave
>>>> related mailing lists:
>>>>
>>>> * [hidden email] - same as now, discussion of development of
>>>> Octave core
>>>> * [hidden email] - new mailing list for discussion of development of
>>>> Octave Forge
>>>> * [hidden email] - mailing list for discussion of any help related to
>>>> Octave (packages included)
>>>
>>>
>>> I spoke with JWE about this and he suggested to keep only the
>>> maintainers and help mailing lists, moving the development discussions
>>> of Octave Forge to the Octave core maintainers mailing list. That
>>> should avoid any confusion new users may have.
>>>
>>> I do not oppose to it, after all there's not that many Octave Forge
>>> only development threads.
>>
>>
>> Traffic fluctuates.  Sometimes one is more active than the other. Before
>> combining these two, how about considering some alternate names?  I get both
>> mailing lists at the moment.  I do like the separation for the reason you
>> explained very well a month or two ago, i.e., folks tend to gravitate toward
>> one list because it is too much to pay attention to everything.
>>
>> To me, "forge" is simply too generic.  That the term "forge" may be common
>> for other projects doesn't change that fact.  We feel these two are good:
>
> Forge is not too generic since the project name is Octave Forge.
> Therefore, no doubt should come out of an address such as
> [hidden email].
>
>> As the third category, how about:
>>
>> [hidden email]
>> [hidden email]
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> applications: For advanced features such as packages and interface to other
>> software.
>
> 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?

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.


> 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?


> 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 Forge?


>  Calling it advanced is insulting to core as if one
> could not do advanced stuff with core only.

No it isn't.  Packages encompass advanced fields of study.  Calling
something advanced doesn't imply something else isn't advanced in its
own way.



>> 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 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.
Occassional duplication hasn't struck me as a concern as of yet.
Perhaps others feel otherwise.

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.

2012 has certainly been one of the most active years of development, and
I think the reorganization of the core code has gone a long way toward a
more developer-friendly project.  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?

I propose a holding pattern with discussions about consolidation and
rolling out the GUI as part of, or coincident with, OctConf 2013?

Dan

> - these ones were in both maintainers and forge mailing list and don't
> really count (this seems to becoming more common over time) :
>
> * this very own thread
> * http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octconf-2013-td4646964.html -
> discussion of OctConf2013
> * http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/low-level-I-O-GPIB-USBTMC-VXI11-td4646993.html
> - about various instrument control packages that are not part of
> OctaveForge and whether they could be merged (descended into
> discussion of legal stuff and was eventually moved to the maintainers
> mailing list)
> * http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/complex-error-function-td4645714.html
> - someone shared code for Octave and it was discussed where it should
> go
>
> - http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/removing-java-package-from-SVN-tree-td4647021.html
> - this ones was about the removal of the java package from Octave
> Forge since it was moved to Octave core. It was not mentioned in the
> maintainers mailing list but I wouldn't not have been out of place
> together with an announcement of its move
>
> - the following 4 e-mails were all on the same subject. We decide to
> restrict the licenses in forge and sent a couple of e-mails to the
> copyright owners asking to relicense their code
>
> * http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/removal-of-non-standard-licenses-in-Octave-Forge-td4645841.html
> * http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Re-License-Andy-Adler-s-code-in-Octave-Forge-td4646143.html
> * http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/License-of-medfilt1-in-Octave-Forge-td4646144.html
> * http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/FreeBSD-vs-simplified-BSD-td4645843.html
>
> Carnë

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Carnë Draug-2]

On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Daniel Sebald]

On 11/25/2012 04:10 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 01:48 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
>>> You seem to be confused about what Octave Forge is.
>>
[snip]

>> 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.

So there will be changes to the Octave webpage descriptions that
consequently (or at least intend to) direct the bulk of OctDev to the
"[hidden email]" mailing list?

Thoughts from others who have followed the "help" email 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.  However, looking at the list
of packages just now, it does seem there are quite a few more geared
toward software, e.g., tcl-octave.  Anyway, "[hidden email]" was an
alternative I tossed out there.


>> 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.

Both.


>> 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.

>>> 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.

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.

Dan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Carnë Draug-2]

On 26 November 2012 01:01, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/25/2012 04:10 PM, Carnė Draug wrote:
>>
>> On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald<[hidden email]>  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
> "[hidden email]" 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Juan Pablo Carbajal-2]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26 November 2012 01:01, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 04:10 PM, Carnė Draug wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald<[hidden email]>  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
>> "[hidden email]" 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

[Júlio Hoffimann]

The mailing lists novel... KISS

[hidden email]

[hidden email]

That's enough.

2012/11/25 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 26 November 2012 01:01, Daniel J Sebald <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 04:10 PM, Carnė Draug wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25 November 2012 21:44, Daniel J Sebald<[hidden email]>  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
>> "[hidden email]" 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev