Re: Alternative to Source Forge for Octave Packages (Was : Re: pdepe)

[Carlo De Falco]

On 31 May 2016, at 08:09, Oliver Heimlich <address@hidden> wrote:

> There is a manual process involved (reviewing pull requests, don't know
> if they check for malicious code). Did you plan to have this manual
> process in your package distribution system? What would be different
> from Octave-Forge?

Thanks for looking into this. 

Indeed the main purposes of the switch would be to reduce
centralization and human intervention as much as possible.
If the package publication process needs too much manual intervantion
that does hinder the usefulness of this system somehow ...

This is though also motivated by some concerns about some recent
misbehaviour by SourceForge and by the the intent of avoiding
to be too strictly locked-in to a specific service provider 
in the future.

Anyway, IIUC in julia the pull-request is only needed to register
a NEW package. Package developers are then give push access
to JuliaLang/METADATA.jl for subsequent updates (I see currently 
437 contributors in that repository). Is my impression wrong?

c.