Re: maintaining some packages at core Octave (was: Re: OctConf 2018, second day -- a lot of discussions and some work done)

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

> I think with such a change we'd need to reconsider the policy of
> Octave Forge: Currently, the 'community' group of packages is meant
> for coordinating development with Octave, at least potentially. The
> proposed change would mean that Octave developers prefer a
> coordination in a different way.

I am with Olaf in this. Indeed it seems to me that at some point we
wanted to bring OF closer to core to then "move functions to core" (as
in the scripts folder).
But now we actually want to have a caste system of packages where we
have core and OF packages.

Also I tend to agree in the comment regarding developers attention.
Can't the core developers pay attention to OF?
We could have 'core','community' and 'external' packages as packages
categories in OF, in which 'core' has all the core development
standards (including a named branch "stable" used as in core). As an
extra benefit, delineating the criteria to classify as a 'core'
package in OF might go in the same direction as providing better
documentation for developers.

This latter solution still runs into the "naming" problem, but at
least this will be handle din one place, namely OF.

JPi