|
From: | Julien Bect |
Subject: | Re: Octave Forge -- Looking for a new leader |
Date: | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 16:59:37 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0 |
Le 08/01/2017 à 16:23, c. a écrit :
On 8 Jan 2017, at 16:09, Nir Krakauer <address@hidden> wrote:Sure, we just need to have the needed permissions and a specification of the process (on the Wiki).Or, we let each package maintainer distribute the package where they wish and just maintain a list of links on octave.org. that way we can get rid of all (or 99.999% al least) of the OF maintainance burden for good ...
My opinion about the first option (letting each maintainer do the release process) : why not, but...
1) This means giving write access to both the FRS and the web site to *all* package maintainers. But don't we want to give this permission only to people that have proved themselves trustworthy in some sense?
2) Unless we develop a comprehensive set of tools to check for formal correctness (tarball structure, presence of all mandatory files, reproducibility of build, etc.), this means again putting a lot of trust in *all* package maintainers (to do that themselves "manually", following some "process" on the wiki).
My opinion about the second option (transforming OF into a collection of externally hosted repos and/or tarballs) : this would be very drastic change of philosophy, and...
1) It only partially solves the problem, since the release of a package means updating the web site both to let it point at the new release (unless we define a standard way to find it on the external site), and to update the documentation (unless we also stop distributing a documentation of the OF web site ?).
2) And again, I believe that it requires as above a comprehensive set of tools for automated checking of formal correctness (unless we accept the idea that OF is a collection of links without any garantee of quality ?).
This is just MHO anyway.But, should this discussion continue for weeks until a decision is made and the necessary tools are developed, I think (as I said earlier) that the necessary permissions for handling releases should be given to a group of people that can get the job done, at least for some transition period.
@++ Julien
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |