Re: A question on Matlab compatibility

[Paul Kienzle]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Peter Jensen wrote:

> Gents,
>
> In relation to the discussion below,
> could somebody clarify the procedure
> for reporting differences between mat*ab
> and octave-forge.
>
> I found out that the scaling for pwelch in
> octave-forge is different from matlab,
> but I was not sure  if I should report this
> as a bug.
>
> If the scaling of pwelch was changed in
> octave-forge it may break some peoples
> code. On the other hand the function is
> not mat*ab compatible right now.

Incompatibilities should be reported as issues.  The editor
for the particular package is responsible for deciding what
to do with the information.  So far we have favoured
compatibility with Matlab over consistency between versions.
At the very least, incompatibilities should be documented.

Many of the packages do not currently have editors so I
can't guarantee a reasonable or timely response to your
report.  Reports on the octave-forge bug-tracker will
eventually get a response one way or the other.  Reports
via e-mail may be forgotten.

BTW, I would appreciate an active user of the signal
processing package taking over the role of editor.  I'm
no longer an active user and don't have time to maintain it.

Thanks in advance,

   - Paul