octclip and geometry package

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

octclip and geometry package

Carnë Draug
Hi José

the geometry package has included a copy of the whole octclip package
on itself. Are you interested on merging the two packages into a
single geometry package, or do you wish to keep it a separate and have
geometry depend on octclip?

Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial repos.
I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created it,
you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could get
you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
on it.

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi José
>
> the geometry package has included a copy of the whole octclip package
> on itself. Are you interested on merging the two packages into a
> single geometry package, or do you wish to keep it a separate and have
> geometry depend on octclip?
>
They have been already merged, like a year ago. octclip at the moment
is a subpackage of geometry. If José has plans to extend it further
one can consider to put it as an external package, but as far as I
remember the idea was to provide polygon clipping and that's it.
As far as svn log is telling me, José's updates on 2012-10 are in the
subpackages and the subpackage has a bug correction reported by Rafael
therefore the independet octclip package seems outdated.

> Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial repos.
> I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created it,
> you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could get
> you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
> diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
> on it.
I guess this is only for José.

> Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

José Luis García Pallero
2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi José
>
> the geometry package has included a copy of the whole octclip package
> on itself. Are you interested on merging the two packages into a
> single geometry package, or do you wish to keep it a separate and have
> geometry depend on octclip?
>
They have been already merged, like a year ago. octclip at the moment
is a subpackage of geometry. If José has plans to extend it further
one can consider to put it as an external package, but as far as I
remember the idea was to provide polygon clipping and that's it.
As far as svn log is telling me, José's updates on 2012-10 are in the
subpackages and the subpackage has a bug correction reported by Rafael
therefore the independet octclip package seems outdated.

Hello:

I would prefer to maintain the OctCLIP package as an independent one. I have no plans to extend it but maintaining as independent is easier for me to do support. It could be marked the octclip as recommended when geometry is installed
 

> Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial repos.
> I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created it,
> you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could get
> you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
> diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
> on it.
I guess this is only for José.

Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket repo. In this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005

Cheers
 

> Carnë



--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
[hidden email]
(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

José Luis García Pallero
In reply to this post by Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi José
>
> the geometry package has included a copy of the whole octclip package
> on itself. Are you interested on merging the two packages into a
> single geometry package, or do you wish to keep it a separate and have
> geometry depend on octclip?
>
They have been already merged, like a year ago. octclip at the moment
is a subpackage of geometry. If José has plans to extend it further
one can consider to put it as an external package, but as far as I
remember the idea was to provide polygon clipping and that's it.
As far as svn log is telling me, José's updates on 2012-10 are in the
subpackages and the subpackage has a bug correction reported by Rafael
therefore the independet octclip package seems outdated.

What is the bug reported? I have no notice about

Cheers
 

> Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial repos.
> I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created it,
> you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could get
> you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
> diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
> on it.
I guess this is only for José.

> Carnë



--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
[hidden email]
(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by José Luis García Pallero
On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial repos.
>> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created it,
>> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could get
>> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
>> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
>> > on it.
>
> Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket repo. In
> this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005

The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
your mercurial repo. Is that ok?

On 20 June 2013 12:01, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> As far as svn log is telling me, José's updates on 2012-10 are in the
>> subpackages and the subpackage has a bug correction reported by Rafael
>> therefore the independet octclip package seems outdated.
>
> What is the bug reported? I have no notice about

Because geometry copied the code from octclip the bug was only
reported to the geometry package and only fixed there.

I think Juan's referring to r11273[1] I'm not sure if it's needed in
octclip or if it was caused by the way geometry handles it's multiple
subpackages organization. One other commit (r11638) changes the same
Makefile.

Carnë

[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11273
[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11638
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

José Luis García Pallero
2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial repos.
>> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created it,
>> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could get
>> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
>> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
>> > on it.
>
> Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket repo. In
> this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005

The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
your mercurial repo. Is that ok?

OK, I agree.

I've seen some files dated on 2009, but not in 2005. When I wrote the OctCLIP I used some code that I had written a couple of years ago, but OctCLIP itself dates from may 2011.
 

On 20 June 2013 12:01, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> As far as svn log is telling me, José's updates on 2012-10 are in the
>> subpackages and the subpackage has a bug correction reported by Rafael
>> therefore the independet octclip package seems outdated.
>
> What is the bug reported? I have no notice about

Because geometry copied the code from octclip the bug was only
reported to the geometry package and only fixed there.

I think Juan's referring to r11273[1] I'm not sure if it's needed in
octclip or if it was caused by the way geometry handles it's multiple
subpackages organization. One other commit (r11638) changes the same
Makefile.

This issues are related only with the geometry package and not affects to the OctCLIP in bitbucket
 

Carnë

[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11273
[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11638



--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
[hidden email]
(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

José Luis García Pallero
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial repos.
>> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created it,
>> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could get
>> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
>> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
>> > on it.
>
> Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket repo. In
> this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005

The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
your mercurial repo. Is that ok?

Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:

https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src

Cheers
 

On 20 June 2013 12:01, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> As far as svn log is telling me, José's updates on 2012-10 are in the
>> subpackages and the subpackage has a bug correction reported by Rafael
>> therefore the independet octclip package seems outdated.
>
> What is the bug reported? I have no notice about

Because geometry copied the code from octclip the bug was only
reported to the geometry package and only fixed there.

I think Juan's referring to r11273[1] I'm not sure if it's needed in
octclip or if it was caused by the way geometry handles it's multiple
subpackages organization. One other commit (r11638) changes the same
Makefile.

Carnë

[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11273
[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11638



--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
[hidden email]
(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Carnë Draug
On 20 June 2013 12:47, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> >> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial
>> >> > repos.
>> >> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created
>> >> > it,
>> >> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could
>> >> > get
>> >> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
>> >> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
>> >> > on it.
>> >
>> > Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket repo.
>> > In
>> > this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005
>>
>> The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
>> the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
>> noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
>> directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
>> your mercurial repo. Is that ok?
>
>
> Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src

I will do the same to the octproj repository. Also, I have noticed
that you have been committing the pdf that is generated from the tex
source. I will filter that file out and update the hgignore file. Is
that ok?

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

José Luis García Pallero
2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
On 20 June 2013 12:47, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> >> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial
>> >> > repos.
>> >> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created
>> >> > it,
>> >> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could
>> >> > get
>> >> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
>> >> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
>> >> > on it.
>> >
>> > Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket repo.
>> > In
>> > this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005
>>
>> The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
>> the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
>> noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
>> directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
>> your mercurial repo. Is that ok?
>
>
> Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src

I will do the same to the octproj repository. Also, I have noticed
that you have been committing the pdf that is generated from the tex
source. I will filter that file out and update the hgignore file. Is
that ok?

OK. No problem.
 

Carnë



--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
[hidden email]
(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

José Luis García Pallero
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
On 20 June 2013 12:47, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> >> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial
>> >> > repos.
>> >> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created
>> >> > it,
>> >> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could
>> >> > get
>> >> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point they
>> >> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new history
>> >> > on it.
>> >
>> > Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket repo.
>> > In
>> > this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005
>>
>> The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
>> the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
>> noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
>> directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
>> your mercurial repo. Is that ok?
>
>
> Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src

I will do the same to the octproj repository. Also, I have noticed
that you have been committing the pdf that is generated from the tex
source. I will filter that file out and update the hgignore file. Is
that ok?

Hello:

I have updates the OctPROJ and OctCLIP repos in order to add the PDF reference manuals to the .hgignore files

Cheers
 

Carnë



--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
[hidden email]
(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
In reply to this post by José Luis García Pallero
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM, José Luis García Pallero
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On 20 June 2013 12:47, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> >>
>> >> On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial
>> >> >> > repos.
>> >> >> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created
>> >> >> > it,
>> >> >> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could
>> >> >> > get
>> >> >> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new
>> >> >> > history
>> >> >> > on it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket
>> >> > repo.
>> >> > In
>> >> > this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005
>> >>
>> >> The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
>> >> the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
>> >> noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
>> >> directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
>> >> your mercurial repo. Is that ok?
>> >
>> >
>> > Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:
>> >
>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src
>>
>> I will do the same to the octproj repository. Also, I have noticed
>> that you have been committing the pdf that is generated from the tex
>> source. I will filter that file out and update the hgignore file. Is
>> that ok?
>
>
> OK. No problem.
>
>>
>>
>> Carnë
>
>
>
>
> --
> *****************************************
>
> José Luis García Pallero
> [hidden email]
> (o<
> / / \
> V_/_
> Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
> *****************************************

Hi,

Here is the reference mail exchange
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Problem-with-octclip-td4634405.html#a4634413

My comments:
1. It is very hard to find functions in Octave-Forge and many packages
obscure names; "octclip" being one of those names, i.e. a user
searching for useful geometrical functions may not look into octclip
cause it doesn't sound like geometry.
2. In general I like "search not order" but in OF we do not have good
search functionalities. Until we get them packages should try to be
organized thematically, or as transparent as possible (yes, "ocs" I am
looking at you :D ).
3. Since we are moving into HG having sub-repos is much easier than it
was in svn, so from the maintainer perspective it should be completely
transparent to maintain only a subfoder/subrepo. It was already super
simple in svn (just checkout the sub-folder!) but seems this wasn't
clear enough.
4. If you are going to revert and separate "octclip" from "geometry"
at least change its name to "polygonclip" or something like that.
Though agian, since "octclip" is just one function, I see no point on
having a separate package.
5. There is no interdependence between "octclip" and "geometry",
however if we are going to start adding "recommended" to the scene,
this might become messy.

In short: I oppose to having octclip as a separate package (there is
no more complexity for the maintainer having them together). However
since I was worry about visibility of octclip, if you want to separate
go ahead, it is really no my problem :D

Cheers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by José Luis García Pallero
On 20 June 2013 12:59, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On 20 June 2013 12:47, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:
>> >
>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src
>>
>> I will do the same to the octproj repository. Also, I have noticed
>> that you have been committing the pdf that is generated from the tex
>> source. I will filter that file out and update the hgignore file. Is
>> that ok?
>
> OK. No problem.

On 20 June 2013 13:10, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have updates the OctPROJ and OctCLIP repos in order to add the PDF
> reference manuals to the .hgignore files

We were doing it at the same time. I have made into a bit more general
hgignore following what we are using for the rest of the octeva forge
packages. Would you take a look at it, please?

Also, I have stripped the pdf files from all history and uploaded them to:

https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/octclip/
https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/octproj/

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

José Luis García Pallero
In reply to this post by Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM, José Luis García Pallero
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On 20 June 2013 12:47, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> >>
>> >> On 20 June 2013 11:52, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > 2013/6/20 Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> > Also, we are moving all of Octave forge to individual mercurial
>> >> >> > repos.
>> >> >> > I noticed that you already have one in bitbucket. When you created
>> >> >> > it,
>> >> >> > you didn't convert the old history. If you are interested, I could
>> >> >> > get
>> >> >> > you a mercurial repo with all of the old history until the point
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > diverge. I'm guessing it should be possible to graft your new
>> >> >> > history
>> >> >> > on it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, the main development was done using the mercurial bitbucket
>> >> > repo.
>> >> > In
>> >> > this repository is all the history, from its creation in may 2005
>> >>
>> >> The first commit of that repo is May 2011. I noticed the date 2005 on
>> >> the source code and assumed that there was history before that. I just
>> >> noticed that the SVN repository also starts on 2011. I will remove the
>> >> directory main/octclip in the svn repository and upload a clone of
>> >> your mercurial repo. Is that ok?
>> >
>> >
>> > Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:
>> >
>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src
>>
>> I will do the same to the octproj repository. Also, I have noticed
>> that you have been committing the pdf that is generated from the tex
>> source. I will filter that file out and update the hgignore file. Is
>> that ok?
>
>
> OK. No problem.
>
>>
>>
>> Carnë
>
>
>
>
> --
> *****************************************
>
> José Luis García Pallero
> [hidden email]
> (o<
> / / \
> V_/_
> Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
> *****************************************

Hi,

Here is the reference mail exchange
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Problem-with-octclip-td4634405.html#a4634413

My comments:
1. It is very hard to find functions in Octave-Forge and many packages
obscure names; "octclip" being one of those names, i.e. a user
searching for useful geometrical functions may not look into octclip
cause it doesn't sound like geometry.
2. In general I like "search not order" but in OF we do not have good
search functionalities. Until we get them packages should try to be
organized thematically, or as transparent as possible (yes, "ocs" I am
looking at you :D ).
3. Since we are moving into HG having sub-repos is much easier than it
was in svn, so from the maintainer perspective it should be completely
transparent to maintain only a subfoder/subrepo. It was already super
simple in svn (just checkout the sub-folder!) but seems this wasn't
clear enough.
4. If you are going to revert and separate "octclip" from "geometry"
at least change its name to "polygonclip" or something like that.
Though agian, since "octclip" is just one function, I see no point on
having a separate package.
5. There is no interdependence between "octclip" and "geometry",
however if we are going to start adding "recommended" to the scene,
this might become messy.

In short: I oppose to having octclip as a separate package (there is
no more complexity for the maintainer having them together). However
since I was worry about visibility of octclip, if you want to separate
go ahead, it is really no my problem :D

Cheers

Hello:

Sorry, I didn't remember that mail, but it's right, I have saud that I have no problem to integrate OctCLIP into geometry. Your reasons have convinced me, so I'm not opposed to the integration.
But in order to the package maintaining, I can only assure support for my code, i. e. the code on https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip
Is there any way to do the changes (if they are needed) on https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip and clone them on the repo for geometry?
Anyway, I will maintain my bitbucket repo as no Octave Forge official, so my package will maintain the OctCLIP name and the function will maintain the oc_polybool() name. I suppose in geometry it is not a problem to write a *.m wrapper that calls internally the oc_polybool or its C++ countepart

Cheers

--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
[hidden email]
(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 20 June 2013 12:59, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2013/6/20 Carnë Draug <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> On 20 June 2013 12:47, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Also I have another bitbucker repo for the package OctPROJ:
>>> >
>>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octproj/src
>>> > https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip/src
>>>
>>> I will do the same to the octproj repository. Also, I have noticed
>>> that you have been committing the pdf that is generated from the tex
>>> source. I will filter that file out and update the hgignore file. Is
>>> that ok?
>>
>> OK. No problem.
>
> On 20 June 2013 13:10, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I have updates the OctPROJ and OctCLIP repos in order to add the PDF
>> reference manuals to the .hgignore files
>
> We were doing it at the same time. I have made into a bit more general
> hgignore following what we are using for the rest of the octeva forge
> packages. Would you take a look at it, please?
>
> Also, I have stripped the pdf files from all history and uploaded them to:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/octclip/
> https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/octproj/
>
> Carnë

Ok,
Lets wait for Carnë's decision.

If he agrees on keeping the merge then I will find out how to have a
subrepo from bitbucket (octave core is already doing something like
that). You should worry only to maintain your repository, but please
do respond when bug reports are submitted.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by José Luis García Pallero
On 20 June 2013 13:23, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But in order to the package maintaining, I can only assure support for my
> code, i. e. the code on https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip
> Is there any way to do the changes (if they are needed) on
> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip and clone them on the repo for
> geometry?

It should be possible to have octclip has a subrepo inside the
geometry repo. Kinda similar of what's happening with gnulib and
Octave core. But if you're releasing octclip separately in any way
it's a mess. Suppose someone has version X of octclip. And then
installs geometry which includes version Y of octclip. Depending on
the the order they installed the packages on that day they will have
different results. And if other packages depend on octclip and another
on geometry...

I don't mind what happens as long as there's no 2 packages around with
the same code. Either 1) geometry includes octclip and the octclip
package is removed (it can still exist in a separate repository), or
2) geometry removes octclip and adds a dependency on octclip (if its
functions really depend on it). However, if you go for the 1, please
reconsider if it's really necessary to keep the extra repository.
Having the two together does not mean you are responsible to give
support to the whole thing. It's just an extra layer of unnecessary
complexity.

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

c.-2
In reply to this post by Juan Pablo Carbajal-2

On 20 Jun 2013, at 14:11, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (yes, "ocs" I am
> looking at you :D ).
I know …
And I guess at bim and fpl  too …
c.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
On 20 June 2013 13:45, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 20 June 2013 13:23, José Luis García Pallero <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> But in order to the package maintaining, I can only assure support for my
>> code, i. e. the code on https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip
>> Is there any way to do the changes (if they are needed) on
>> https://bitbucket.org/jgpallero/octclip and clone them on the repo for
>> geometry?
>
> It should be possible to have octclip has a subrepo inside the
> geometry repo. Kinda similar of what's happening with gnulib and
> Octave core. But if you're releasing octclip separately in any way
> it's a mess. Suppose someone has version X of octclip. And then
> installs geometry which includes version Y of octclip. Depending on
> the the order they installed the packages on that day they will have
> different results. And if other packages depend on octclip and another
> on geometry...
>
> I don't mind what happens as long as there's no 2 packages around with
> the same code. Either 1) geometry includes octclip and the octclip
> package is removed (it can still exist in a separate repository), or
> 2) geometry removes octclip and adds a dependency on octclip (if its
> functions really depend on it). However, if you go for the 1, please
> reconsider if it's really necessary to keep the extra repository.
> Having the two together does not mean you are responsible to give
> support to the whole thing. It's just an extra layer of unnecessary
> complexity.

Why don't we arrange to talk about this on IRC at a time that suits us all?

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octclip and geometry package

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why don't we arrange to talk about this on IRC at a time that suits us all?

sure, I will be there from now on