Re: cleaning list of octave forge developers

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

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

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

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

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

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