[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
From: |
Sergei Steshenko |
Subject: |
Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Apr 2012 01:42:29 -0700 (PDT) |
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden>
> To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> Cc: Thomas Weber <address@hidden>; "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
>
> On 1 April 2012 17:02, Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave
>> and packages should be released in conjunction with each other.
>
> We're not doing this to spite you. OF Packages are released separately
> because it's too much work to do it together and OF package developers
> sometimes see Octave as a foreign black box instead of something they
> should work with.
>
> - Jordi G. H.
>
You are doing this because of lack of understanding of importance of proper
integration and QA.
Had you been releasing Octave and packages together, you would have had much
less bugs in Octave pkg.m and in packages themselves. I.e. building _all_ the
packages with an Octave version is a very good test for both Octave and
packages.
I am saying _very_ tirvial things - look at a Linux distro for example - it is
released with thousands of packages. And if a package from an official
repository can't be installed, it is considered to be a bug.
Regards,
Sergei.
- "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem, Sergei Steshenko, 2012/04/01
- Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem, Thomas Weber, 2012/04/01
- Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem, Sergei Steshenko, 2012/04/03
- Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem, marco atzeri, 2012/04/03
- Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem, John W. Eaton, 2012/04/01