Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

[Alois Schloegl]

On 2017-12-29 11:22, Olaf Till wrote:
> Alois,
> 
> Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
> turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package

Olaf,

do I need to wait until this vote has happened ? If yes, when will this
vote take place? (Out of curiosity - who is eligible to vote ?)

> 
> https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
> 
> despite the fact that it corresponds to a Matlab toolbox.

I'm not sure I understand; what difference does it make whether it
corresponds to a Matlab toolbox ?

> 
> But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
> 'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
> so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
> from Octave Forge.

I'm not sure I understand; what do you mean by "[taking a] .. package
off .. Octave Forge" ? And even a "community" package is usually
maintained on Octave Forge - why would you take it off ? Do I need to
worry about this - or is this about some other unrelated issue ?

> 
> Would you accept this?
> 
> Olaf
> 

The two links
  https://octave.sourceforge.io/dev-descr-two-groups.php
  https://octave.sourceforge.io/common-requirements.php
do not contain any language about requiring a specific (i.e.
octave-only) coding style. This is good and addresses my main concern.
This will allow maintaining compatibility to both target platforms,
Matlab and Octave, and no code-duplication would be necessary.

In summary, yes, this seems more than acceptable to me, Actually, if I
understand this correctly, it's not only "acceptable" but matches the
desired solution.


   Alois