Re: regarding location of Matlab compatible polygon functions

[Carlo De Falco]

On 11 Apr 2016, at 03:03, Doug Stewart <address@hidden> wrote:

>> My suggestion:
>> Let the involved package maintainers sort out & decide where to put the new 
>> polygon functions.  It appears both JuanPi and I already agree. The octclip 
>> maintainer is welcome to jump in as far as I am concerned.
>> 
>> Philip
> 
> 
> I think that the person who did all the work should have a strong say in 
> where it goes(If they want to have a position on where it goes).
> 
> -- 
> DAS

+1 on this one. This should be a general rule.

I believe the whole purpose of separating packages 
from core-Octave is that development can be carried
out by a separate maintainer for each package without
stepping on each other's feet.

So as long as no conflicts between different packages
exist let each package maintainer do what the f***k he/she
wants. 

If any conflict arises between two packages let the package
maintainers settle it between themselves.

Remember that the main reason for TMW to separate functions
for specific applications into separate packages is to charge
an additional fee for those who want them, which is totally
irrelevant for Octave, so there is no point in copying Matlab here.

All disputes coming up in this (now extremely lengthy) thread would
be meaningless if all packages were into core Octave, but we don't
want this to happen as having too many overly specific functions in Octave
 would increase the maintainance for the benefit of few users.

If we place too many constrains on package maintainers and overdo the
entanglement between different packages the whole purpose of the separation 
is defeated.

These are my .2€, anyway.
c.